Skip to main content

Full text of "Outlines for the study of art"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



h 1 

p I 




Study of Art 


H. H. Powers, Ph. D. and Louise M. Powe 

Vol. II 

To Accompany a Collection of Reproductions of 

Later Italian Art 

(the university prints) 

) J ' 

*■ o 



Introductory Note. 

The "Outlines for the Study of Art^* were originally published 
as a monthly pamphlet from October to May. Two volumes were 
issued — the one covering the early period of Italian art, the other 
the later, beginning with Leonardo and ending with the Decadence. 

It is the latter, which, at the request of a number of our students, 
we are offering herewith in bound form. 

It is hoped that the student, in considering the present arrange- 
ment of the text, will bear in mind the original plan of the work, 
and will overlook the pages of announcements, which, although 
they had their place in the pamphlets, may now be somewhat 
disturbing. The numbers throughout the volume are those of the 
accompanying series of reproductions. 

• • ••• ••• • 0* m »•• •*• 

•• • •• • • • ^» 

•• • •• • •• • •• 

: : ..: : ••• ••• ••• 


N ''"' 




Number Nine. 
A* Introduction. 

TAg Laboratory Study of Art. 


Early Italian Art. 

By H. H. Powers. 

B. Sp^ial Bibliography No. 9. 

C. Study. 

a. Leonardo da Vinci and the new Milanese school ; 

b. // Sodonia and the later Sienese. 

/ I — Leonardo da Vinci. 

2 and 3 — Beltraffio, Salaino, Cesare da Sesto, Giampet- 
rino ; Ambrogio de Predis, Bernardino de* Conti, Solarlo, 
Bernardino Luini, Gaudenzio Ferrari, Bonsignore. 

4 — Domenico Beccaf umi Baldassare Peruzzi, II Sodoma. 

Number Ten. 

A* Introductory Essay. 

The New Standard. 

By Louise M. Powe. 

B. Special Bibliosrrapliy No. 10. 

C. Study. 


Italian Sculptors of the Developed Renaissance. 

I and 2 — a. Andrea Sansovino and his school. 

Andrea Sansovino, Jacopo Tatti, Benedetto da Rovez- 
zano, II Tribolo, Francesco di San Gallo. 

b. Minor Sculptors outside of Tuscany. 

Pietro Lombardo, Riccio, Piero Torrigiano, Begarelli. 
Bambaja, Properzia de' Rossi, Alessandro Vittoria. 

c. The Certosa of Pavia. 

3. Workers in Bronze. 

^ Alessandro Leopardi, Cellini, Giovanni da Bologna. 

4. The Decadence. 

Lorenzo Bernini, Stefano Maderna. 

Number Eleven. 

A. Introductory Essay. 

The Conventions of Sculpture. 

By H. H. Powers. 

B. Special Bibliography No. 1 1. 

C. Study. 

Raphael Sanzlo and his School. 

1. a Timoteo Viti: 

b Introduction to the study of Raphael ; the period of 

2. The Madonnas of Raphael : 

a Florentine period ; b Roman period. 

3. Frescos in Rome : 

a The Vatican Stanze; b Loggie of the Vatican; 
c Santa Maria della Pace and other Churches ; d the 


a Other works of the Roman period; Portraits; Tap- 
estries for the Sistine Chapel and their^ Cartoons ; 

b Raphael's assistants and followers: Giulio Romano, 
Francesco Penni, Perino del Vaga, Giovanni da 
Udine, Primaticcio, Innocenzo da Imola, Andrea 

Number T^arelve. 

A. Introductory Essay. 


By H. H: Powers. 

B. Special Bibliography No. 12. 

C. Study. 

Sixteenth Century Painting:. 


1. Fra Bartolommeo ; Albertinelli. 

2. Andrea del Sarto; Francia Bigio, Ridolfo Ghirlandajo, 

II Rosso, Pontormo. 


3 and 4. Correggio; II Parmigianino ; Dosso Dossi, 

Number Thirteen. 

A. Introductory Essay. 


B. Special Bibliography No. 13. 

C. Study. 

By H. H. Powers. 

nichael kngtXo Buonarroti. 

1. Early Life and Works. 

2. a Tomb of Pope Julius II. ; 1> the Medici Tombs. 

3. Frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. 

4. a Architectural designs ; b Sonnets ; c Decline of Life, 
d Imitators and followers: Montorsoli, Raffaello da 

Montelupo; Bandinelli; Daniele da Volterra, Sebas- 
tiano del Piombo, ^arcello Venusti. 

Number Fourteen. 

By H. H. Powers. 

A. Introductory Essay. 

TAg Sistine Ceiling. 

B. Special Bibliography No. 14. 

C. Study. 

Sixteenth Century Painting:. 


1. Giorgione, Jacopo Barbari. 

2. Titian's Early Life and Work. 

3. Titian's Maturity. 

4. Portraits and Late Religious Paintings. 

Number Fifteen. 

A. Introductory Essay. 

Giorgione and the New Art. 

By H. H. Powers. 

B. Special Bibliography No. 15. 

C. Study. 


Slxteentli Century Paintinsr* 
-^ Venetian School. 

Venice t the Friuli^ the Tremsana. 

1. Palma Vecchio ; Lorenzo Lotto; Pordenone. 

2. Tintoretto ; Bassano, Paris Bordone ; Palma Giovane. 


3. Torbido; Paolo Veronese; Bonifazio I., 11., III. 

Masters of Brescia and Bergamo, 

4. Romanino; Moretto; Moroni. 

Number Sixteen. 

A. Introductory Study. 

The Zenith of Venetian Art. 

By H. H. Powers. 

B. Special BibliosT^phy No. 16. 

C. Study. 

The Italian Decadence. 

I and 2. a late SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
The Mannerists. 
Bronzino; Vasari; Baroccio. 


The Eclectics. 

The Caracci family ; ^uido Reni, Albano, Domenichino ; 
Guercino ; Sassof errato ; Christofano Allori, Carlo 

3. The Naturalists. 
Caravaggio ; Ribera, Salvator Rosa. 

4. a Padovanino; Ghislandi. 


Painting: Tiepolo; Canaletto. 
Sculpture: Canova. 

• • 



Number Nine, 



Number Nine. 


Z\ic Xaboratori? Stubi? of art 

Is the laboratory method applicable to the study of 
art? The laboratory has revolutionized science and 
education within the nineteenth century, lifting some 
studies up to honor and consigning others to neglect. 
Unfortunately some of the greatest studies have suffered 
most, notably the study of art, history and civilization in 
general. We have formed the habit of studying adout 
these things from books instead of studying the things 
themselves. Unfortunate as is this habit, it is quite 
natural and very hard to discontinue. The things we 
study about in these sciences are not always easy to get 
at and in some cases have quite disappeared. But the 
rule holds here as elsewhere, that we must see and touch 
things before we can really know them. To read about 
them gives us no real knowledge of them; it only tells us 
their names. To read about art without seeing it is like 
reading about music without hearing it. How much 
could we learn about music in that way ? 

It helps matters very much when we can have pictures 
in our book. Then we can read what the writer says and 
turn to the picture to verify the text. Thus many things 
become clear of which the text alone would give us 
little idea. But this is not satisfactory. No teacher of 
zoology would allow his students to substitute an illustrated 
text book for the laboratory, nor would he allow him to 
read his book first and merely refer to the specimen to 
verify what he had read. He insists that he must go first 
to the specimen and then refer*to his book afterward to 
confirm or test his observations. What difference does it 
make ? All we know is that the experience of hundreds 
of years and thousands of educators is a unit in affirming 
that those who look first and read afterwards learn to see 
as those who read first and look afterwards do not. 


They form the habit of depending on words for their first 
impressions and their senses refuse to act independently. 
That means that they never see for themselves, for the 
book is always the record of someone's else seeing. So 
they merely follow after someone else and, like all imi- 
tators and echoes, they have but the shadow, not the sub- 
stance of knowledge. 

The only suggestions likely to be of any value in lab- 
oratory work are such as raise unanswered questions and 
stimulate to further inquiry, suggestions that make us look 
not save us the trouble of looking. This it is our aim to 
supply in the Outlines. Every pains is taken to avoid 
questions which can be answered by reference to books 
or in any other way than by looking at the picture itself. 
The Outlines thus constitute a laboratory manual for the 
study of art as embodied in accessible reproductions. 
The other features of the Outlines, bibliography, topics 
for special research, etc., are designed to facilitate the 
use of the library which has its legitimate place, though 
one that should never be confounded with that of the 
laboratory. Learning art is learning to see, and its proper 
method cannot be other than exercise in seeing. 

But while art like all other subjects that present them- 
selves to the senses can be studied by the laboratory 
method, it is in a sense peculiar. Appealing as it does to 
the beauty sense, it is highly emotional in its aim and 
character. We can study brush-work, drawing, etc., in the 
most cold-blooded manner imaginable, but these things 
are not art. Art is spiritually conceived and must be 
spiritually discerned. Not that art appreciation expresses 
itself in incoherence and "gush." This is no more 
appropriate in aesthetic then in personal relations. But 
the true mission of art is to arouse a certain feeling in us, 
and that feeling, however definitely conceived by the 
artist, will vary with the temperament and circumstances 
of the individual. The laboratory study of art will there- 

fore produce less uniform and definite results than the 
study of science. The questions must be more suggestive, 
the answers less certain. During the past year we have 
had repeated requests for a key in order that the student 
may know when he has "the right answer." To furnish 
furnish such a key would inevitably lead to two results. 
First, the questions would tend toward the definite, /. ^., 
the technical side of art, such questions being so much 
more manageable in the key. This would merely side- 
track the whole inquiry, as has been done in almost every 
application of the scientific method to this study. The 
study of pictures quickly becomes a study of picture 
manufacture, attention being devoted to the physics and 
mechanics of art rather than to its aesthetics. Second, 
the key would find explanations and discussions necessary 
in many cases instead of simple categorical answers. It 
would thus inevitably assume the form of an essay, and 
before we knew it we should be back in the old way of 
reading about pictures rather than looking at them. 

And, after all, such answers would be only one man's 
opinion — only the record of one man's seeing. They 
would never take the place of our own seeing. They 
could and would hinder its development. 

It follows from the foregoing that the reproductions 
published in connection with the Outlines are vital to the 
study here contemplated. No pains have been spared to 
makethe collection complete, accurate, and representative. 
In the preparation and classification of these repro- 
ductions alone a guidance has been furnished to the 
student never before offered. The freest possible use 
should be made of them, especially by comparison in all 
possible connections. For this purpose they are pub- 
lished unbound, as any binding would interfere with their 
use for purposes of study. The full number published 
this year will soon be ready and a catalogue is mailed as 
a supplement to the present number. 


jearl^ Italian Brt0. 


The history of Italian art falls naturally into two peri- 
ods separated by the convenient date of 1500. On the 
one side stretch two centuries of uninterrupted growth 
and progress. On the other, two centuries more are il- 
lumined, first by a light of dazzling brilliancy, and then 
by an intermittent flicker of dying flame. Seldom is a 
transition more marked than that from the early to the so- 
called high Renaissance. The veriest tiro can tell whether 
a picture falls within the one period or the other, while 
the real kinship and dependence between the two often 
eludes the expert. We have been busied with the pro- 
gress of art in this earlier period. Before turning to the 
works of the later period, it is well to formulate what we 
have learned. Slowly we have made the acquaintance 
of one work of art after another, and, through these, of 
the artists whose thought and character they reveal. But 
these artists have each their own individuality, and, as 
we have studied them, we have perhaps felt their- differ- 
ences more than their resemblances. The contrast be- 
tween such men as Massaccio and Fra Angelico seems 
fundamental — one that goes down to the very bottom of 
art. But let us step farther back and lose the conscious- 
ness of individual differences in a general survey. What 
have these men in common that distinguishes them from 
artists of other times ? If we do not at once recognize 
such a common character we have but to ask whether 
any of these artists could be mistaken for Japanese or 
even for Greeks. The reply is instant and decisive — No, 
they are Italians, of course. Well, then, could Giotto or 
Botticelli be confounded with Raphael or Correggio, or 
Massaccio with Michelangelo ? The answer is scarcely 


less prompt. Anybody can see that they are early 
Italians. What is, it then that distinguishes an early 
Italian, be he a Fra Angelico or a Massaccio, a Giotto or 
a Ghirlandajo, from the brilliant painters of the sixteenth 
century so that a child may tell them apart ? 

Perhaps the unsophisticated judgment of the uninitiated 
is worth as much as any. How do the unschooled dis- 
tinguish the early from the later works? Probably the 
common answer would be that the early works are old- 
fashioned. More closely scrutinized this means that pe- 
culiarities of dress, custom, expression, etc., impress us 
in this early art as^they do not in the later. We have the 
same feeling that we have in looking at photographs of a 
few years back. Small sleeves have displaced large 
ones, hair is combed up instead of down, coats are of a 
different cut, and altogether the effect is striking, not to 
say funny. But the striking thing in this case is that the 
later works are almost as old as the earlier to us, and the 
costumes and accidents generally scarcely less unlike our 
own. When we recall the unfamiliar costumes with which 
Titian, Raphael, or Veronese clothed alike their charac- 
ters from history, mythology, or sacred writ, and the 
equally strange interpretation put upon word and deed, 
the wonder is that we have any sense of naturalness in 
their creations. But we do. We even resent departure 
from these antiquated standards in favor of either histori- 
cal verity or modern realism in the representation of 
those subjects which the art of this period made its own. 
Out of the long panorama of fashion's caprice a single 
scene has been chosen and given enduring validity as the 
sanctioned anachronism of sacred art. But it was the 
sixteenth century that thus secured for its types, its cos- 
tumes and its conventions the seal of permanent appro- 
val, not the fourteenth or the fifteenth. It was Italy 
whose thought and manner acquired this universality, not 
Flanders, or Germany or Spain. The early Italian paint- 


ings seem old-fashioned. Holbein's Madonna seems 
foreign and strange, and Velasquez's Princess seems arti- 
ficial and absurd, but the long-forgot ton costumes of 
sixteenth-century Florence and Venice evoke no protest 
and excite no mirth. 

The meaning of all this is clear. The early art did 
not solve the problem of subordinating its accidents to 
its essence. The Madonna cannot make you forget her 
clothes, the subject cannot make you forget the difficul- 
ties and shortcomings of its representation. To a large 
extent this is simply a question of manual skill. Thus, 
Giotto, even in his sublimest conceptions, distracts our 
attention by his bad drawing and by his ignorance of 
those studio devices which are now the property of the 
novice. The feet, when not concealed by the long robe 
for which he shows such judicious predilection, are help- 
less and deformed. Facial expression, though never 
false, is meager and inadequate. Above all, his con- 
stant resort to symbolical rather than realistic represen- 
tations of buildings, landscapes, etc., whose mass and 
complex perspective overtaxed his powers, gives an 
appearance of strangeness and artificiality to a work 
which is in its essence marvellously real and drawn 
straight from communion with nature. No artist ever 
lived who was less hidebound by fashion or tradition or 
conventionality than Giotto, but the language of his art 
was not yet ready to express the vigor and naturalness 
of his thought. It is as hard for the novice to enjoy 
Giotto as for the modern to read Chaucer, and so the 
one, like the other, is passed by in favor of the insipid 
conventionalist who says nothings elegantly and in 
familiar modern speech. 

Closely allied to this faulty representation of detail is 
the difficulty experienced by nearly all the early painters 
in subordinating details. It is not that they paint detail 
ill but that they paint it too well, make it too prominent. 


All this may be nature but it is not art. Nature herself 
makes details too prominent for our purpose. That is 
why art is better than nature, why it reveals what nature 
does not. Thus, the exquisite profile portraits attributed 
to Piero della Francesca are models of observation and 
delicate workmanship, but we are invariably disturbed 
by the undue prominence of the brocaded dress so per- 
fectly reproduced in outline and color. Or again, take 
the double portrait in Berlin attributed to Giovanni Bel- 
lini. The faces are fine and expressive, but the large 
masses of reddish hair combed down over the ears in the 
style of the time are unpleasantly obtrusive. Brocaded 
dresses are common enough in the later art but pass 
quite unchallenged. Giorgione, too, has given us a por- 
trait (also in Berlin) in which the hair, dressed in the 
same obtrusive fashion, quite escapes attention. The 
difference is that the later artists have appreciated the 
obtrusiveness of these unpleasing details, and while not 
ignoring or omitting them, they have toned them down 
till they become inoffensive. This is done in part by 
slurring the outlines, in part by slight changes of color, 
but, above all, by the free use of shadow as a damper 
upon the over prominent parts of the subject. This 
shadow has no existence in nature which casts the same 
merciless light upon dress and face, often to the detri- 
ment of the latter. It is a device of the artist by which 
he graduates his emphasis as he will. It is but one 
among a multitude of devices by which the artist seeks 
to transcend nature, to disentangle the essential from the 
non-essential and make parts of her infinite meaning 
more plain. 

The early painters had but an imperfect command of 
these devices. Their loyalty to nature was undiscrimi- 
nating and their art naive. Seeking to render nature 
faithfully, they found their very skill a danger as did Hol- 
bein and the Flemings at a later date. And so their 


subjects will not divest themselves of the accidents which 
their skill too faithfully obtrudes upon our gaze and with 
the change that has befallen these changeable things they 
look old-fashioned, provincial, queer. 

Entirely different forces from another side enhance 
this impression. This early art was very far from being 
simply realistic. If it represented men and their usual 
accessories, it was no commonplace aspect of man's 
nature that interested them. Certain noble passions 
and rare emotions were the real subject of their art, and 
both character and incident were chosen and manipu- 
lated for this purpose. These passions and emotions 
were naturally such as mankind set store by at that time. 
In brief, they were the ideals of the age. They differed 
profoundly from those of the age following. It was an 
age of simple and credulous faith which rather esteemed 
it a privilege to believe the improbable. The imagina- 
tion, encouraged by the serious reception accorded to its 
creations, was strongly active, and fancies, born of many 
minds, were built into imposing systems not easily 
brushed aside by timid and sporadic skepticism. The 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are the exponents of 
this Christian mythology. Quaint legends of improba- 
ble sainthood shared with allegorical representations of 
impossible virtues and impracticable rules of life the 
dominion over the artist's mind. This was period of 
Christian art, i. ^., the period in which art took Christianity 
seriously. These things were a reality in the fourteenth 
and fifteenth centuries; in the sixteenth they are a 
shadow and in the twentieth they are but a name. 
Christianity remains, but with a new heaven and a new 

Nothing so explains the strangeness of the older art 
as this change in our inmost ideals. This early art, 
however beautiful, was provincial and ephemeral in the 
things it glorified. Its saints were real saints and so 


they seem strange to us. The saints of a later age are 
merely human and so they seem our kin. 

Crudity, naivete, sincerity; our characterization has 
unconsciously passed from criticism to praise. Along 
with the defects which invariably strike the observer the 
older art has a substantial worth which unfailingly com- 
mends it on longer acquaintance. If Giotto could not 
draw fingers and toes, he never failed to make his mean- 
ing clear, and his meaning is never trivial or conventional, 
If he gives us the art of the child, it is of the child that 
enters into the kingdom of heaven. If he gives us inci- 
dent rather than character, it is after all incident that 
reveals character. No other artist ever approached him 
in the vividness with which he conceived far away scenes 
or the fertility of device with which he made them vivid 
to other men. Other artists show the multitude spread- 
ing their garments in the Savior's way ; Giotto shows 
them pulling off their garments over their heads, the 
unhackneyed incident giving the impression of reality 
while the hackneyed one is passed unnoticed. In an 
age when fancy peopled the world with countless demons 
and explained all exceptional phenomena by their inter- 
vention, Giotto tells the story of the passion with but a 
single unavoidable allusion to Satanic intervention thus 
giving it a freshness and reality which mediaeval super- 
naturalism had denied it. So with Massaccio. Saint 
Peter is baptizing a youth. We pass sleepily by this 
threadbare commonplace of Christian story. But here 
stands a naked youth, who shivers as he waits his turn. 
Instantly our nonchalance vanishes as we meet this vivid 
reminder of our common human experience. Freshness, 
originality, earnestness meet us at every turn. If we 
have the representation of local and stilted ideals we at 
least have no copying of outworn motives and conven- 
tional forms. If the painter is in bondage to the tradi- 
tions of the church, he is at least not in bondage to the 


traditions of art ; if he is sometimes lacking in skill, he 
is not daft over his cleverness; if his means are not 
always adequate, they at least remain means. He may 
look out upon a narrower horizon, but he looks out of 
honest eyes and gazes with interest and zest. He paints 
sympathetically, sincerely, loving and believing what he 
paints, not condescendingly, catering to the foibles of the 

And so he gives us art. His ideals have vanished, 
his methods are discarded, his skill is long surpassed. 
The thoughts of men have widened with the process of 
the suns, and the story that he tells with so much earnest- 
ness and love comes like a tale from fairylanc^ But his 
devotion to beauty as he saw it, his sincerity, earnestness 
and conscientiousness, and his rapt gaze as he beholds, 
in his imperfect creations, the vision which he has 
vainly sought to give to us, these things are not out 
of fashion ; they change not with the changing years. 


Special Bibltograpb!?. 

Number Nine. 

Blanc, Charles, and others. Histoire des Peintres de 
toutes lea Ecolea Ecole Milanaise. Paris, 1876. 45fr. 

The eaj^er student must regret the brevity of these biographical notices, 
as well as the small number of paintings that are discussed. But the discrim- 
inating character of the essays, added to the fact that there is no correspond- 
ing work in English, makes them invaluable in the study of Leonardo's 
school. Consult appendix also. 

Cartwright, Julia (Mrs. Ady). Beatrice d' Este. 111. N. Y., 
Dutton. $3.00. 

Those who have read the same writer's memoirs of Isabella d' Este, and 
her life at the Court of Mantua, will welcome this new work on the 
younger sister of that interesting family and the Court of Milan during the 
reign of the generous patron of arts and letters — Ludovico il Moro. 

Clement, Charles. Raphael, Ijeonardo da Vinci, Michel- 
angelo. London, 1880. los." 6d. 

Cook, Theodore Audrea. Spirals in Nature and Art. 111. 
"A study of spiral formations based on the manuscripts of Leo- 
nardo da Vinci, with special reference to the architecture of the 
open staircase at Blois, in Touraine." N.Y., Dutton, 1903. $2.50. 

A curious and ingenious essay, containing much interesting information 
concerning Leonardo as a votary of science. 

Cust, Robert H. T. The Pavement — Masters of Siena. 

(Handbooks of Great Craftsmen.) 111. London, Bell, 1901. 5s. 

Douglas, Langton. History of Siena. 111. London, Mur- 
ray, 1902. 25 s. 

Written with fine appreciation of Sienese art. 

ISastlake, Lady. Five Great Painters, v. i. London, Long- 
mans & Green, 1883. i6s. 

A series of critical essays characterized by large knowledge of art and 
sympathy with the subject. 

Goethe, J. W. von. Abendmahl von Leonard da Vinci zu 
Mailand. Werke, v. 49, part i. 1898. 

Halsey, Ethel. Gaudenzio Ferrari Great Masters in 
Painting and Sculpture. 111. London, Bell (N.Y., Macmillan). 


At the time of going to press, this book is not issued, although announced 
several months ago. When it appears it will be a boon to students who have 
become interested in this able ana original painter, bvit who find very little 
published material concerning him. 

Heaton, Mrs. Leonardo da Vinci and His "Works. 111. 

N. Y., Macmillan, 1874. $12.00. 

Especially valuable for its colored reproductions of drawings, made by a 
photographic process which insures their correctness Also to be recom- 
mended for its appendix, which occupies about one-third of the volume. 

Heyr^ood, Wm. Our Lady of August and the Falio of Siena. 

Siena, Torrini, 1899. (About) $1.50. 

No previous account of the Palio has been given to the English public in 
book form. With it is a concise history of the city and Sienese pastimes. 


KnackfusB, Editor. Leonardo da Vinci Monographs on 

Artists. 111. N. Y., Lemcke & Buchner, 1903. $1.50. 

We have already alluded to the uniform excellence of this biog^raphical 
series. The present volume is admirable in every way. 

Marks, A. St. Anne of Leonardo da Vinci. London, 1883. 
(Also, Magazine of Art, v. 7, 448.) 

Muntz, Eugene. Leonardo da Vinci 2 v. 111. N. Y., 
Scribner, 1898. $15,00. 

An enthusiastic biographer, a brilliant and ^nial critic, M. Muntz has 
made an unique contribution to the literature of his subject. Both Leonardo's 
unquestioned works and those of doubtful authenticity are discussed with 
fullness and fairness. The second volume is concerned chiefly with Leonardo 
as a savant. The work is richly illustrated with photogravures, colored and 
tinted plates and outline cuts. 

Richter, Jean Paul. Leonardo da Vinci. 111. Great Artist 
Series. London, Sampson, Low & Co., 1884. 5s. 

This small volume of biography and criticism is by an authoritative writer. 

Richter, Jean Paul. Literary Works of Leonardo da 
Vinci 2 V. 111. 1883. 5£. 

A work of high value characterized by careful research into this line of 
Leonardo's activities. 

Richter, Luise M. Siena (German). 111. Berlin, Seeman, 

Rigaud, John Francis, Tr. A Treatise on Painting by- 
Leonardo aa Vinci, with Life of Leoneurdo, by John William 
Brown. III. London, Bell, 1887. 

A translation of Trattata della Pittura — a volume of valuable instruction 
in anatomy, composition, chiaroscuro and color. Modem criticism has re> 
versed certain opinions held by the author of the " Life," and his list of Leo- 
nardo's works contains many that are now ascribed to other artists. 

Seailles, Gabriel. Leonard da Vinci, I'artiste et le savant. 

Paris, 1892. 

Steams, Frank Preston. The Midsiunmer of Italian Art. 

N. Y., Putnam, 1900. $2.25. 

Written after the manner of impromptu lectures; abounding* in items of 
interest that the student is elad to possess, but may read many carefully col- 
lated biographies without fmding*. 

Sweetser, M. F. Leonardo da Vinci Artist Biographies. 
Boston, Houghton, 1878. $i.25(.?). 

Williamson, G. C. Bernardino Lnini. Great Masters in 
Painting and Sculpture. 111. London, Bell (N. Y., Mac- 

millan), 1899. $1.75. 

The editor of this useful series of biographies has written one of its most 
satisfactory numbers on the life of Luini. 

Note. — Bell & Sons, London, announce that Monographs on 
Michael Angelo, by Lord Gower, and on Leonardo da Vinci, by 
Edward McCurdy, as well as that on Gaudenzio Ferrari, by 
Ethel Halsey, are in preparation. We recommend our sub- 
scribers to watch for the publication of these volumes which 
will, doubtless, like the others of this series, embody the results 
of the latest research and criticism. 



Cosmopolitan Magazine, 1890, June. 

COURRIER DE L'ArT, 1 889. NOS. 25, 27. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1887, v. 23. 2d Series : 1886, v. 41 ; 
1887, V. 60; 1888, V. 62. 

Jahrbuch der K. p. S. v. 7. 

L*Art. v. I, 

Magazine of Art, 1894, September, October; 1901, October. 

NouvELLE Revue, 1895. v. 4. 

Revue des Deux Mondes, 1887, October i. 

Revue ENCYCLOPEDiquE, 1894. v. 4. 

Review of Reviews, 1892, March. 

Note. — Two slight changes are introduced into this number 
of the Outlines. Brief explanatory notes will accompany certain 
pictures when such information is deemed helpful but may not 
be readily found by the student. In accordance with a sugges- 
tion made simultaneously by several subscribers, small type 
will be used for certain questions on Special Pictures which, 
through their connection with technical problems or their re- 
quirement of somewhat extensive reading, make demands im- 
possible for some students to meet by reason of limited time or 
lack of library privileges. 


lesson 1. 


'' Painter of the Soul:* 

Outline for Study, 

Part I. 

Leonardo's personality — Manifold gifts of 
mind and person : his taste for luxury, fondness 
for music and society. 

Personal relations with his pupils : silence regard- 
ing women : fame among his contemporaries. 

The courts where his talents were exercised : his 
princely patrons [Lorenzo de' Medici, Ludovico 
Sforza, Caesar Borgia, Pope Leo X., Isabella 
d' Este]. 

The character of his many-sided genius, its dan- 
ger : '^ indecision the dominant factor in his 

Part II. 

Leonardo the Artist — His training in Veroc- 
chio's studio : interactive influence of master 
and pupil : his fellow students. 

Leonardo's paintings and qualities that distin- 
guish them : experiments in technique ■ and 
desire for perfection : extreme care in prepar- 
ing for a picture : carelessness in completing it. 

His drawings and their importance in leading to 
an understanding of his character. 

Leonardo's early work in Florence : Adoration of 
the Magi. 

His life in Milan : equestrian statue of Fran- 
cesco Sforza : analysis of the Last Supper : 
causes of its present condition : numerous con- 
temporary copies of this picture. (Rigaud 
XXXIX. : Vasari II., 388, foot note.) 


Second period of residence in Florence : Cartoon 
of Madonna with St. Anne : Battle of Anghiari. 

The Virgin of the Rocks — " marks an epoch in 
the annals of Florentine art." 

Psychological interest of portraits by Leonardo 
and his imitators, illustrated by Mona Lisa and 
others attributed to him : the " Leonardesque 
smile/' its origin, its influence. 

Grounds on which his fame rests : his practise 
founded upon a study of nature uninfluenced 
by antique ideals : the real secret of his power : 
his effect on the art of later times. 

Part III. 

Leonardo the Scientist — His varied interests : 
indifference to the publication of his investiga- 
tions and writings : sources of information — his 
manuscripts now in the Ambrosiana of Milan, 
Institut de France, British museum and else- 
where : the Trattato della Pittura. 

His close observation of nature : tendency to sci- 
entific speculation and experiment : anticipa- 
tion of modern discoveries and conclusions. 

Studies in botany, biology, anatomy, in optical 
phenomena and color, in the laws of acoustics, 
in hydraulics, etc. 

Activity in engineering and in mechanical inven- 

Topics for Further Research. 

Condition of science in the fifteenth century. 

The Milanese State in the High Renaissance. 

Career of II Moro. 

Beatrice d' Este and the Court of Milan. 

A Pope's Son — Cesare Borgia. 

The Last Supper in Art. 

Leonardo's contemporaries in Milan and Florence. 


Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 1667b — Angels. 

(Detail, Baptism of Christ by Verocchio.) 

The Angel at the left, according to Vasari, was painted by 
Leonardo while still a pupil in Verocchio's studio. This figure, 
with some other portions of the picture, was painted in oil; 
the remainder in tempera. 

Compare the treatment of drapery with other portions 
of i666^ with 1544* and 1545*, also by Verocchio. Is 
it successfully represented ? Does it hide or reveal the 
form beneath? 

What is the spiritual import of the face of Leonardo's 
Angel ? Had the artist a strong feeling for beauty ? Of 
what sort ? Are the features sharply drawn and out- 
lined ? Is the face well modeled ? What does the treat- 
ment of the hair add to the general effect ? 

Is this type of face found in Leonardo's maturer work ? 

No. 3302b — Madoima and Child. 

(Detail of Cartoon, Adoration of the Magi.) 

This Cartoon, in brown monochrome on wood, is probably 
the sketch for an altarpiece commissioned for the monastery of 
San Donato near Florence. Arches, flights of steps and rear- 
ing horses appear dimly in the background of the composition 
which is nearly square in form. Numerous sketches and studies 
exist for the figures grouped around Madonna. 

Is Madonna a type familiar in Leonardo's pictures ? 
Has she physical, intellectual and spiritual beauty ? Do 
the attitude and proportions suggest other women 
drawn by him ? Does this mother regard her in- 
fant as Deity or as a merely human child ? Have we 
seen any old man's face like this at the left in our Art 
study ? Has it more or less of reality than others ? 

What do we lose by the unfinished condition of this 
fragment? ,Is there any doubt as to the type of 
Madonna that Leonardo intended to portray ? 

Is the child held with strength and firmness ? Is he appro- 
priately designed and well-drawn? Is the quality of grace 
paramount? How elaborate are the means used to represent 


his chubby body and limbs ? Is the same texture of flesh sug- 
gested as in the Madonna of the Rocks? Are modeling and 
drapery sufficiently suggested for enjoyment? Compare draw- 
ing of outlines with finished work by Botticelli, Perugino. 

Is it possible that we enjoy this work more because it is not 
finished? Why? 

No. 3005^ — The Last Supper. 

Nos. 3006b -3008b -3011b _ Detsdls. 

This picture occupies the entire width of an end wall in the 
Refectory of the Dominican Monastery of Santa Maria delle 
Grazie, and was completed about 1498. Painted in oil colors on 
plaster, it quickly deteriorated. The monks caused a door to be 
cut through the wall mutilating the lower portions of the paint- 
ing ; during the French occupation of Milan under Napoleon 
the room was used as a stable and the picture served as a target. 
It has been repainted in parts, several times, but the paint has 
scaled to such an extent that only the action of the composition, 
the grace of line and general expression of the figures are 
now preserved, yet these are so rich in suggestion as to mark 
it as the mature expression of one of the most consummate 
artists that has ever lived. Few masterpieces of the Renaissance 
can equal this in composition, in delineation of character and 
in dramatic pathos. 

What moment has the artist chosen for his theme ? 
Your reasons for this opinion. Is the individuality of 
each disciple preserved ? Do all appear to be of humble 
origin ? Does Leonardo follow scripture and church 
legend in this respect ? liow is Judas indicated ? In- 
terpret his attitude and gesture. Is this the customary 
treatment ? What is gained here ? Is the face of Jesus 
a worthy one ? Cf. 2226^, 2210^, 2160^, 2160^, 1900^ 

Into what groups is the company divided ? Are these 
groups isolated or connected ? How do they balance 
each other ? How is monotony avoided ? 

Are the disciples profoundly " in earnest ? Is there 
unrestrained violence of emotion ? Is emotion of the 
same kind and intensity expressed by each group ? Is 
the same high level of interpretive treatment maintained 
throughout the composition ? 


Note the action of arms and hands : where do their 
motions carry the eye of the spectator ? Is their move- 
ment smooth and rhythmical, or agitated and broken ? 
More broken on one side of the picture ? If so, for 
what reason ? Should the movement increase in excite- 
ment as it approaches Jesus ? Why? What is the char- 
acter and what the meaning of His gesture ? In what 
point do the lines of Jesus' right arm and Judas* left arm 
converge ? Are there corresponding lines on the other 
side of the picture ? Is this significant*? 

By what means is the feeling of spaciousness pro- 
duced? Do the table and figures appear too large in 
proportion to a room of normal dimensions ? Too large 
for good artistic effect ? Is the background happily con- 
ceived and arranged? How do the windows affect the 
picture ? Do the figures seem to be surrounded with air ? 
What details are noticeable about costumes and table? 
Are they Oriental or Italian ? 

Does every detail bear a direct relation to the central 
thought of the picture? Does the composition seem 
labored, or are arrangement and action natural and un- 
affected? Is taste anywhere at fault? Any fault in 
draughtsmanship ? 

What interpretation of the artist's character is conveyed 
by this picture ? What proofs of his artistic skill ? 

No. 3007b — study for Head of Christ. (Pastel drawing.) 

" Its authenticity has been doubted, but from an artist's point 
of view the drawing must be pronounced beautiful and subtle 
enough to be an original and by a great master." — Blashjield, 

How closely does this correspond to your idea of 
Christ? Are this and 3006^ studied from the coldly 
intellectual side, or are they emotional? In 3007^ is 
strength suggested or passive endurance only? Is the 
character impression you receive derived from the expres- 
sion of the face or from its cast of features ? Is this as 
subtle as other faces by Leonardo ? 


Is the head above the forehead as high and full as you 
commonly see in nature ? Is this characteristic of heads 
by Leonardo ? What character interpretation should you 
place upon such a type seen in real life ? 

No. 3015b— Mona Lisa. 

Portrait of the wife of Francesco del Giocondo of Florence, 
and for that reason often called La Gioconda. Tradition says 
that the tedium of the sittings was relieved by music and other 
diversions, so that the lady's face never lost its smile. The pic- 
ture has suffered from cleaning and restorations which have 
probably obliterated some details — as, for instance, the eye- 
brows. It is now cold in tone with heavy gray shadows : but 
the fascination of its expression is still irresistible, and the per- 
fection of its drawing and finish may be conjectured from the 

Compare with portraits by Florentine artists that we 
have studied. Are the outlines equally distinct? Are 
the features indicated in the same manner ? What differ- 
ence in the treatment of the hair and how significant in 
the history of painting ? 

What is Mona Lisa's attitude and where is she placed ? 
Where is her attention directed ? What does her expres- 
sion indicate ? Is it easy to interpret ? Why ? Does 
anything similar occur in other pictures by Leonardo ? 

Are the hands an important factor in the general ex- 
pression of the picture ? What degree of accuracy in 
their relative size, in form, modeling, in the turn of the 
wrist ? What is the background ? Is it Florentine in 
character? Does it recall others by the same artist? 
Cf. also I667^ 

Does this resemble other portrait studies by Leonardo in mass- 
ing of light? In suggestion of character? In elusiveness of 
expression? How is the word " sfumato " applied by writers 
to Leonardo's method, illustrated in this portrait? Are there 
broken lines in the picture? Is the whole effect smooth and 
flowing? How can these contrary conditions be reconciled? Is 
perspective observed in drawing, the figure — /. e.^ do the far- 
ther shoulder and elbow seem more distinct than the near? 


Why is this picture so famous ? (Do not give conventional 
reasons, but those that are convincing to yourself.) 

No. 30161> — Madonna, St. Anne, Christ-child and St. John. 

This cartoon was prepared in 1503, or soon after, for a painting 
ordered for the Church of the Annunziata, Florence. Filippino 
Lippi, who had previously been offered the commission, re- 
signed in favor of Leonardo. The latter having failed, within 
a reasonable time, to complete his picture, the monks trans- 
ferred the commission to Perugino, who, after Filippino's 
death, finished the painting begun by him for the place — The 
Descent from the Cross, now in the Academy, Florence. 

What is the position of Madonna and St. Anne ? Why 
are they so placed ? What is the significance of St. 
Anne's gesture and glance? How is age indicated in 
St. Anne.-^ Can you recall the heavy shadows around 
the eyes in other pictures by Leonardo ? Is Mary an 
ideal mother of Christ.? What is her attitude toward the 
child ? Of St. John ? Is the group well arranged, pic- 
torially? What customary principle of structure in a 
picture has been disregarded ? Has Leonardo's genius 
overcome this ? 

Cf. 3002^, 3027^. What do you infer from the resem- 
blances between these three ? Are these figures well 
rounded ? Are the firmness and softness of flesh sug- 
gested ? Do the draperies closely follow the forms they 
cover, or are there unnecessary folds ? Would they be 
more effective if more elaborate ? Cf. Botticelli. 

Are the beauty and grace of these persons such as one may 
see daily in real life? How different from Botticelli's treatment 
of similar subjects? Is it a cold intellectuality that finds ex- 
pression in Leonardo's paintings.? Why.? Is it inspired work? 

No. 3020b — Madonna of the Rocks. 

Painted at Milan, probably during Leonardo's first period of 
residence there, as part of an Ancona. The scheme of color is 
now low-toned and neutral. A duplicate exists in the National 
Gallery, London. Which is the original is a disputed question, 
but the balance of authority seems to favor the Louvre copy. 

Compare arrangement of figures with 3016^. Is this 


more correct, more natural, more beautiful ? Is all sub- 
ordinated to the story, or is there a perfect balance be- 
tween narrative, sentiment of the actors, propriety of 
attitude, beauty of person and technical excellence ? 
What part do the hands play in explanation of the inci- 
dent ? Is the angel's hand repeated in any other picture 
by Leonardo ? Is it a fortunate gesture ? Why ? 

Is the Christ-child natural in face and form ? Is there 
anything more ? How does this compare with other con- 
ceptions ? 

What suggests that this may be early work ? Does it 
make the impression of rapid or of carefully-calculated 

What could have influenced Leonardo in the choice of this 
kind of landscape? Cf. 3015^ , 3027b . Do such landscapes act- 
ually exist ? 

Why is this a painter's Madonna rather than a churchman's ? 
Is any significance attached to the spreading of Madonna's 
mantle? Do you recall other pictures of her in which the mantle 
is symbolical? 

No. 3024b —Portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. 

("The Faust of Italy.") 

Drawing in red chalk, probably executed during his residence 
in France. 

What marks of age in this head ? Does it express 
the character of Leonardo ? 

Is the head solid ? Are the forms of the face well- 
drawn and firm ? Is there a feeling of flesh ? Is the 
quality that of old or of youthful flesh ? Why? Are 
hair and beard abundant, or thin and wiry? Are the 
eyes too deep set to be natural ? 

How has the draughtsman produced his effects and 

what indications are here that he is an artist of rare 


No. 3025b — The Annunciation. 

This small panel (which formerly had an arched top) was 
long attributed to Lorenzo di Credi, but it is now believed by 
many critics to be an early work by Leonardo. 


Compare with 1738^ noting points of resemblance and 
difference. Which are most vital ? 

• How is religious feeling manifest ? Was the artist 
intent upon complete illustration of churchly legend, 
with its details of environment etc., or upon only the 
emotional side of the incident ? How does this compare 
with other representations of The Annunciation in appro- 
priateness and fullness of feeling ? 

Of what objects is the background composed? Is their indefi- 
niteness detrimental to the artistic value of the picture? To its 
meaning? What is the effect of the large, plain masses of light 
on the figures ? Are they sufficiently detached from the back- 
ground for good artistic effect? Or was the artist's intention to 
make his figures and their environment of equal value? Is that 
the feeling with which we look upon persons in a room or in a 
landscape? Cf. 3015*' , 3027^ . 

No. 3026b — John the Baptist 
No. 3033b ~ Bacchus. 

The attribution of these pictures is questioned. The Baptist 
has been attributed to Salaino. (The reed cross is scarcely 
discernible in the Reproduction.) 

Does the resemblance between these two extend beyond 
the face ? Is the type masculine or feminine ? Cf. So- 
doma's St. Sebastian. Have the two persons anything 
in common ? Which is the more appropriate represen- 
tation ? Are the faces subtle ? Spiritual ? 

Interpret the extended forefinger. Where else does 
it occur in Leonardo's pictures ? 

Do the attitude and expression of 3033^ suggest any 
incident in the career of the god or any phase of the 
Bacchic myth? Does the distant landscape resemble 
others by Leonardo ? By Sodoma ? 

What are the proportions of the Leonardesque type of form? 
Is the modeling of these figures so simple as to be devoid of 
interest? Cf. faces of Mona Lisa's Madonna in 30i61> and St. 
Anne in 3027b . What new thought in art finds expression 
in 3026I' ? 


No. 3027 b_ Madonna, Child and St. Anne. 

(Known in Germany as St. Anna Selbdritt.) 

This picture was purchased by Richelieu in Lombardy in 
1629 and by him presented to the King. It corresponds very 
closely to the minute description of an unfinished sketch seen 
in Leonardo's studio in 1501 by a correspondent of Isabella 
d' Este. Many artists in North Italy have copied the original 
in whole or in part, and Raphael makes use of the figure of the 
Christ-child with the Lamb in a Holy Family now in Madrid, 

What is the shape of this group ? Is there any sug- 
gestion of crowding or clumsiness? Cf. 3016**. What 
important differences are there in composition ? In 
which more grace, more beauty and subtlety in the 
faces ? How does it compare in these particulars with 
other pictures by Leonardo? Cf. Mona Lisa, groups 
from Last Supper, Bacchus. 

Is the difference in age satisfactorily expressed ? Is 
drapery well composed ? What material is suggested ? 
Is this intentional or appropriate ? 

What is the moft/ of the landscape? How does the 
tree in the middle distance help the composition ? 

How does this differ from pictures of this subject by artists 
previously studied ? Is it more or less conventional ? More or 
less religious? Spiritual? Is anything lost by making the 
Christ-child so natural ? What is gained ? 

What significance in the interweaving of lines and limbs? 

No. 3032b _ La Belle Ferroniere. 

The identity of the original of this fascinating portrait is a 
much discussed topic. By some she is considered a lady of the 
court of Milan, Lucrezia Crivelli, famous for her intellectual 
character as well as for her beauty; by others, the wife of 
Feron (hence the name of the portrait), a lady of the court of 
Francis I., the French king : still others attempt to identify the 
portrait with Isabella d' Este, Duchess of Mantua. It has been 
ascribed to B. de' Conti. 

Was the artist's aim to present the natural appearance 
or to picture the inner character of this person ? Inter- 
pret her character. Cf. Mona Lisa. What differences 


of technique are noticeable (as outline, modeling, etc.)? 
Are the character differences entirely in the persons 
themselves or has Leonardo's personality entered in? 
Your reasons. 

What are the factors of this woman's beauty? Do you 
find the same traits in other works by Leonardo ? Is 
the drawing of the figure faultless ? 

From what direction does the light fall ? What is its effect 
on the forms of the cheek ? Does this play of lights and re- 
flected lights distinguish Leonardo's work in general? How 
does it affect the brilliancy of a picture? 

No. 3041b _ Female Head. ( Drawing.) 

Probably a study for Madonna in 3027b . In the Albertina 
Collection, Vienna, is another drawing attributed to Leonardo, 
of a head in the same attitude, but with slight differences in 
arrangement of hair, expression and inclination of face which 
bring it into closer resemblance to the painting. The authen- 
ticity of many drawings ascribed to Leonardo has been ques- 
tioned, but if not by his own hand, they show how strong 
was the influence he exerted on all who came in touch with him. 

Have we here correct drawing of a head? Correct 
placing of details — as features, parting of hair, set of 
head on the neck, etc.? Correct perspective in the folds 
of the head drapery? 

Define the expression of the face. Do the eyes con- 
tribute to it as much as the mouth ? (Cover each in 
turn and study the other separately.) Is it simple or 
subtle ? Is this woman highly spiritual ? 

General Questions on Leonardo da Vinci, 

Is there any " internal evidence " that portraiture was 
introduced into Leonardo's compositions, as the Last Sup- 
per and Madonna of the Rocks? In single heads, as 
John the Baptist and Bacchus ? What is the distinction 
between a type and a portrait ? 

How is his work a break from traditional treatment 
of religious themes? Was Botticelli's work such a 
break? If so, how? 


Did Leonardo adopt any trait or peculiarity from pred- 
ecessors ? 

Do Leonardo's figures appear to actually live in and 
be a part of their environment ? Or is the background 
merely an artistic setting for the figures ? Do his pic- 
tures indicate professional interest in architecture ? Ex- 
plain the fantastic quality of his landscape. Does such 
scenery exist ? Is he equally finished in draughtsman- 
ship, chiaroscuro, action, linear and aerial perspective, 
grace of design ? 

Was Leonardo a man of rich or exalted imagination ? 

Or, was he merely an extraordinarily close student of 

nature ? 



1667b . 
3002b . 

3005^ . 

3006b . 


3009b . 

3010b . 

3011b . 

3015^ • 
3016b . 

3020b . 
3024b . 

3025b . 

Florence — Academy: Angel: detail of Baptism of 
Christ, by Vecchio. 

Florence — Uffizi : Madonna and Child: detail of 
cartoon, Adoration of Magi. 

Milan — S. M. delle Grazie, Refectory: The Last 

Head of Christ : detail of No. 3005b 

Milan — Brera : Head of Christ : drawing. (Ques- 

Group of Disciples, right end : detail of No. 
3005b . 

Group of Disciples, right center : detail of 
No. 3005b . 

Group of Disciples, left center: detail of 
No. 3005b . 

Group of Disciples, left end : detail of No. 

Paris — Louvre : Mona Lisa. 

London — Royal Academy : Madonna, with St. Anne : 

Paris — Louvre: Virgin of the Rocks. 

Turin — Royal Library : Leonardo da Vinci: draw- 

Paris — Louvre: The Annunciation. (Attributed to 
Lorenzo di Credi.) 


3026b. . , Paris — Louvre: John the Baptist. (Questioned.) 
3037b. . . Paris — Louvre: Madonna, Child and St. Anne. 
3032b. . . Louvre — La Belle Ferroni^re. (Attributed to B. de 

3033^' • • Paris — Louvre: Bacchus. (Questioned.) 
3041 . . . Milan — Ambrosiana : Study for head of Madonna, 

No. 3037b . 
3043b. . . Paris — Louvre: Battle of Anghiari. (Fragment): 

copy by Rubens. 

Berenson . . . Florentine Painters of the Renaissance. 66-69. 

Brown The Fine Arts. 306-307. 

Cartwright . . Beatrice d* Este. 

Cartwright. . Painters of Florence. 242-269. 

Clement . . . Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael. 

Cook Spirals in Nature and Art. 

Courrier de I'Art — 1889. Nos. 25, 27. Recherches sur Andrea 


Dohme Series of Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. C. Brun, 

Leonardo da Vinci. 

Eastlake. . . . Five Great Painters, v. i. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1887. v. 23, 2d Series. Des ecrits 

de Leonardo da Vinci; 1886. v. 41. H. de 
Geymuller, Les derniers travaux sur Vinci ; 
1887, V. 60. F. A. Gruyer, Leonardo da Vinci 
au Musee du Louvre; 1888, v. 62. C. Yriarte, 
Les Relations d' Isabel d' Este avec Leonardo 
da Vinci. 

Gilbert .... Landscape in Art. 214-224. 

Goethe .... Abendmahl von Leonardo da Vinci zu Mailand. 

Werke, v. 49., part i. 

Heaton .... History of Painting. 86-95. 

Heaton .... Leonardo da Vinci and his Works. 

Jahrbuch der K. P. S. v. 7. Constantine Winterberg. L. da 

Vinci's Malerbuch und seine Wissenschaft- 
liche und praktische Bedeutung. 

Knackfuss . . Leonardo da Vinci. 

Kugler .... Italian Schools, v. 2. 391-410. 

L'Art V. I. 124. E. Miintz. The Cartoon of Anghiari. 

Marks St. Anne of Leonardo da Vinci. 

Also Magazine of Art, v. 7. 448. 

Masters in Art. 1901 , February. 


Morelli Italian Painters, v. i. 69-70:88; 120 (note); 

177-179; 191. 
Miintz .... L'Age d* Or. 47-69 ; 787-802. 
Miintz .... Leonardo da Vinci. 
Nouvelle Revue — 1895. v. 95. 742. 

Pater The Renaissance ; chapter on Leonardo da Vinci. 

Poynter. . . . Classic and Italian Painting. 131-138. 
Revue des Deux Mondes — 1887, Oct. i. E. Miintz, Une educa- 
tion d' Artiste du XVme Siecle. 
Revue Encyclopedique — 1894. v. 4. 446. E. Miintz. Les 

portraits da Vinci. 
Leonardo da Vinci. 

Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci. 
A Treatise on Painting by Leonardo da Vinci. 
Leonardo da Vinci, T Artiste et le Savant. 
The Mid-Summer of Italian Art. 26-60. 
Old Italian Masters. 175-182. 
Leonardo da Vinci. ■* 

Age of Despots. 132-155 ; 163-164 ; 345-355 ; 

424-429 ; 543-548. ■ 
Fine Arts. 311-327. 
Lives, etc., v. 2. 367-407. 

. . History of Painting. v. 2. 

Richter . 
Richter. . 
Rigaud . 
Seailles. , 
Stearns . 
Stillman . 

Vasari . 

Woltmann and Woermann 



lLc00on0 2 anb 3- 


Outline for Study, 

Rise and growth of the new school; its char- 
acteristics ; power of Leonardo's personality. 

Leonardo's Academy at Milan ; his pupils ; artists 
inspired by him who were not under his per- 
sonal instruction ; confusion that has existed 
between the paintings of Leonardo and of his 

Old school contemporaries of Leonardo and his 

Topics for Further S^e search, 

Morelli, the art critic and his method. 
The Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery. (A suggestion for 

Leonardo's Pupils. 

Giovanni Antonio Beltraffio (Boltraffio). 1467- 

Marco da' Oggiono. 147 0-15 40? 

Andrea Salai (Salaino). fl. 1495-15 15. 

Cesare da Sesto (Cesare Milanese). i48o?-i524? 

Giovanni Perdrini or Giampetrino (Pietro Rizzo). 

fl. 1493-1540. 

Painters Influenced by Leonardo. 

Ambrogio Preda (de Predis). fl. 1480 ?-i5i5. 
Bernardino de' Conti. d. 1525. 
Andrea Solario. i458?-i5i5. 
Bernardino Luini. 1475 ?- 1533. 
Gaudenzio Ferrari. 1484-15 46. 

Note : We have been guided by Morelli in attributions of 
pictures to these artists. It is but just to say, however, that 
other eminent critics frequently contest his attributions. 


Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3120l> —Madonna and Child. 

(A very carefully finished oil painting.) 

What new motif in this picture ? Is the Child con- 
scious of divinity? The mother ? Did Leonardo's influ- 
ence tend in this direction ? 

What indications are here of the artist's love of beauty? 
Of his refinement? Is the brocaded robe fitting for 
Madonna ? Have we seen it us^d before ? 

What suggestions of Leonardo's influence ? What of 
the influence of the earlier Milanese? Cf. 2017**. 

Is there artistic spontaneity in this picture ? Inven- 
tiveness ? Correct draughtsmanship ? 

No. 3125b — Isabella of Aragon. 

Life-size study in pastel. One of the many drawings in 
the Ambrosiana, Milan, the uncertain authorship of which 
has given rise to much interesting discussion. This pastel, 
and its companion piece, a man's head, were long ascribed to 
Leonardo. Isabella, the name this portrait now bears, was the 
wife of the incapable Gian Galeazzo, nephew of Ludovico 
Sforza, the usurping Duke of Milan. 

What points of resemblance to 3120^? Are the dif- 
ferences such as might be expected between a portrait 
and an idealized head ? Define them. What is lost and 
what gained by difference in finish ? What conventional 
detail has the artist retained in both pictures ? 

Would this be considered the later work ? Why? Has 
it sentiment ? Is it suggestive like the Leonardo faces ? 
Is it handled with strength and knowledge ? 

MARCO DA' oaaioNO. 

No. 3130b — AsBiimption of the Virgin. 

That so unattractive a picture has been chosen may cause 
surprise. A careful study will, however, make it very instruc- 
tive by way of negation. These faces lack beauty — but many 
pictures that we have studied with pleasure have much less. 
The sentiment, although faulty, is not entirely wrong. 


It is primarily the entire lack of artistic feeling in the com- 
position, the restless character of the whole added to a doubt of 
the artist's sincerity that repels us at every turn. Contrast 
such a work with Leonardo's Last Supper in composition alone, 
or with Titian's treatment of this very theme and a better com- 
mentary on the genius of these real artists could scarcely be 

Are the two parts of this composition skillfully and 
naturally limited? Are the hands, faces, clouds and 
high lights brought together in broad masses of light 
and opposed to large, simple shadows, or is the picture 
a series of spots ? 

Is dramatic feeling felicitously expressed ? Are there 
exaggerated or unnatural movements ? Are the hands an 
important factor in the composition ? Are they directed 
into a leading or continuous movement ? Do they carry 
our thoughts toward the Virgin ? 

Is there an upward tendency in the lines about the 
Virgin ? Has the artist left space for her to rise ? How 
do the attitudes of the little angels affect the movement ? 
Has the artist succeeded in imparting a general sense of 
uplift to the picture ? 

Is the landscape familiar ? Is it natural or fantastic ? 
What is the meaning of the mass beneath the Virgin ' 
Is the picture in any way reminiscent of Leonardo's 
Last Supper? 

No. 3160b — Madonna and Child. 

What indications of Leonardo's influence ? What of 
the artist's individuality? Is Madonna a portrait? A 
religious idealization ? Interpret her attitude and expres- 
sion. What is her station in life — high-born or lowly ? 
How does she compare in beauty, naturalness, religious 
sentiment and technique with Madonnas by Florentine 
and by Venetian painters ? 

Is drapery nobly cast — /. <?., is it broad but not monot- 


onous, varied but not meaningless , following natural 
lines and the form of the wearer ? 

Is there anything new in the treatment of the Child's 
hair in this picture or in 3120^? What purpose is served 
by the tree ? Is it a close study of nature ? Is the 
distant landscape as ably drawn as the tree? Compare 
with other landscape backgrounds studied this month. 
Compare, also, landscapes of earlier North Italians — 
Foppa, Cossa, Costa, Francia. Does this tree recall 

that in 3033^? 

No. 3140b — Magdalen. 

Why is this figure called Magdalen ? What is the 
meaning of her attitude .'* Is this religious ecstasy or 
simple penitence? 

Is this faultless figure drawing? (Examine and com- 
pare carefully.) Is the texture of flesh represented ? Is 
it the flesh of an anchorite ? Is the jar correctly drawn ? 

Is the sense of roundness and atmosphere greater or 
less because of the sharp definition of the figure against 
the background ? Why the abundant hair ? Is it painted 
with more careful attention to nature than any exam- 
ple heretofore studied ? Cf. 3026^, 1906**, 1810^,1611^. 
Is there any color suggestion ? 

Portrait painter for the Sforza family; at the court of 
the German Emperor; strength and charm of his paint- 
ings; his recently acquired prestige. 


Early Lombard traits ; the Litta Madonna — a compari- 
son of types. 


The artist family of Solario ; Andrea's ability, refine- 
ment, large production ; his brother's part in his educa- 
tion ; his life in France ; Flemish influence. 


Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 3110b — A Toung Princess. 

This small, exquisitely finished portrait was long attributed to 
Leonardo and is still claimed for him by such critics as Dr. 
Bode of Berlin, and the late Eugene Miintz of Paris. The iden- 
tity of the charming subject of the painting is in doubt. It has 
been conjectured that she was Beatrice d' Este, the youthful 
duchess of il Moro ; or else Bianca Maria Sforza, niece of il 
Moro, who became the wife of the Emperor Maximilian ; or 
Isabella of Aragon, wife of Gian Galeazzo Sforza. That she 
was some member of the Sforza family is probable as Ambrogio 
was Court painter. 

Compare with 3015^ and 3032^, also with other heads 
known to be by Leonardo. What points of resemblance 
are noteworthy ? May the band worn about the fore- 
head in this and in La Belle Ferroni^re be considered an 
argument in favor of both being the work of the same 
artist ? Are Leonardo's faces frank, open, unsophisti- 
cated? Do they seem reserved, thinking their own 
thoughts, subtle ? Has he a wide range of faces, or is he 
confined to one type ? Is this an argument in point ? 

Is the head correctly shaped ? The throat, back and 
shoulders ? Did Leonardo ever err in anatomical form ? 
Compare with living persons. 

Cf. also, 18 1 o**. What traits have these two portraits 
in common? Is 3110^ as solidly modeled? Which is 
the more expressive ? In which the more masterly treat- 
ment of jewels and other accessories ? Does one work 
mark a more advanced stage of art development than the 
other ? 

No. 3111b — Portrait of a Toung Man. 

This unfinished painting is considered a companion piece to 
3110b and like that has been ascribed to Leonardo. It has been 
named Gian Galeazzo Sforza, nephew of il Moro ; also Ludovico 
Sforza, il Moro himself, although this identification is improb- 
able as several known portraits of him are extant which bear 


more or less resemblance to each other but none to this ; Julia 
Cartwright, in her book Beatrice d' Este, calls it a portrait of 
Gian Galeazzo Sanseverino, one of Sforza*s most successful 
generals to whom he gave his daughter Beatrice in marriage. 

What character may be read in this face? Are any 
artistic traits here that recall 3110^? Compare height of 
forehead, length of chin, modeling of nose. Is there any 
resemblance in the treatment of the hair ? Of the eye ? 
Are the eyes abnormal or impossible ? Do other artists 
of the Milanese school treat hair in this manner? Is 
texture expressed in the dress ? 

Why is this picture of higher interest and value than 


No. 3112ii — Angel Playing a Lute. 

Probably a panel from an altarpiece : there is, in the same 
gallery, a companion panel with an angel playing another musical 

How does the face resemble 3110^? Are throat, hands, 
wings rendered with truth to nature? Is the hair as 
truthful ? Do the draperies adapt themselves properly to 
the Angel's form ? Have they been carefully studied from 
the model ? Are they like Leonardo's ? 

Would Leonardo have adapted these proportions of 
the human form ? How do they differ from his type ? 
How are they faulty ? 

Is the angel deeply serious ? In what is he interested? 
Does he increase your respect and admiration for the 
painter ? Why ? 

No. 3171b — Madonna and Child. 
This picture bears a close resemblance to the Litta Madonna 
in St. Petersburg, still attributed there to Leonardo. The Child 
is nearly identical in form and position, although in the St. Peters- 
burg picture he is held in his mother*s arms. The type of Ma- 
donna's face is the same and the arrangement of her low-necked 
robe, but her pose is slightly different. 

Where do you find a Madonna of equal nobility? 
What nationality is suggested by her costume and facial 


type ? Which is the more successful portrayal of char- 
acter — mother or child ? 

Compare the landscape with others by Leonardo's fol- 
lowers. Is this the same motif 1 Is it Umbrian ? Early 
Lombard ? Is it a bit of natural scenery or drawn from 
the imagination ? 

Consider the workmanship of the picture : the arrange- 
ment of lines, distribution of lights, textures, drawing ; 
do all recall Leonardo's truth to nature? Cf. 3120^, 
3I30^ 3160^ Which of these followers possesses more 
of Leonardo's spirit. 

Cf . 3181^. Which picture shows greater freedom ? Su- 
perior technical knowledge ? Deeper religious feeling ? 
Were they designed for a similar purpose ? 

No. 3181^ — Madonna Enthroned, ^^th Saints and Donors. 

This large votive altarpiece shows early Lombard influence 
and was long believed to be the work of Zenale. The four Latin 
Feathers of the Church stand beside Madonna. SS. Jerome and 
Gregory on the right, SS. Augustine and Ambrose on the left. 
Below kneel the donors, Ludovico Sforza, Beatrice d* Este, their 
son Massimiliano, and the younger child. 

How does this vary from the simplicity and naturalness 
of 3171^.'* Is it an advance upon Foppa's work ? Upon 
Cossa's ? Is it composition in the better sense of the 
word ? 

Are any pictures by Leonardo and his followers arranged 
with exact symmetry ? Have they failed in proportion and 
balance on that account ? Why should a painting exe- 
cuted so late as 1496 (the date of this) revert to the 
earlier idea ? 

Does Leonardo's influence appear in any of the faces ? 
Have they life, vigor, vivacity ? Does Madonna recall 
Beltraffio ? The Child recall Marco da' Oggiono ? 

Are the personages in this group in right proportion 
to each other ? Is there intelligent subordination of parts 
to the central idea? What qualities has the picture that 


in a measure atone for its obvious defects ? Cf. 3026^, 
3101^, 3130^ 3160^ Which would make the best altar- 
piece for church or chapel ? Why ? 

No. 3100b — St. Catherine. 

This small panel, one wing of a triptych is, according to 
Morelli, an illustration of the artists* Lombard manner. The 
companion panel, representing John the Baptist, is painted with 
Leonardesque feeling. 

Does this suggest, in the full form of the maiden, in 
treatment of hands and tunic, the same school as 3171^? 
Is the drapery cast with the same breadth and simplicity? 

Are the downcast eyelids an indication of humility or 
are they a mannerism ? Compare other pictures of this 
month. Is the feeling that characterizes the head car- 
ried throughout the figure ? 

Compare with Borgognone's St. Catherine, 2026^, and 
with saints by Luini. Also, with saints painted by Vene- 
tian, Florentine and Umbrian artists. Are there resem- 
blances that ally the Lombards' work and separate it 
from the other schools ? 

No. 3102b — The Repose in Egypt 

What is Joseph giving Mary and the Child ? Is more 
than ordinary paternal feeling expressed in his bearing ? 
Any significance in the long sweeping line of his mantle ? 
What preceding attitude or movement made that line 
possible ? What connection with him has the drapery 
on the ground ? Is the shape of his head characteristic 
also of Madonna and St. Catherine ? 

Is the St. Catherine type repeated in Madonna? 
What points of resemblance between the two pictures ? 
Is this one of those realizations of the Madonna char- 
acter that leave nothing to be desired ? Is Joseph a sat- 
isfactory realization ? Why? 

Why is the donkey present ? Is the landscape more 


like nature and painted with more attention to detail than 
is usual in Italian art ? Can you see throughout the 
picture the Flemish traits of precision, clearness, minute- 
ness and care for artistic perfection ? 

In what does the charm of this picture consist — in 
beauty of face and form, in sentiment or in setting? 
What lines are emphasized ? Are they harmonious and 
pleasing ? 

General Questions on the School of Milan, 

Is the predominating sentiment religious ? When not 
distinctly so is it classic ? Is it Pagan ? 

Is study of nature as exclusive a motive as with 
Leonardo ? Is there a high average of craf tmanship ? 
Are proportions of figures normal ? Are hands and feet 
too large ? Is modeling round and firm ? Are textures 
carefully defined ? 

Is the school distinguished by lofty imagination ? 



3120b. . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli. Madonna and Child. 
3125b. . . Milan — Ambrosiana. Isabella of Ar agon. Pastel. 


3130b. . . Milan — Brera. Assumption of the Virgin. 


3160b. . . Milan — Brera. Madonna and Child. 


3140b. . .Milan — Brera. Magdalen. 


3110b. . . Milan — Ambrosiana. Princess (Beatrice d'Este?). 
3111b . . . Milan — Ambrosiana. Portrait of a Young man. 
3112b. . . London — National Gallery. Angel playing Lute. 


3171b. . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli. Madonna and Child. 
3181b. . . Milan — Brera. Madonna enthoned with Saints 
and Donors. 



3100b. . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli. St. Catherine : compartment 

of triptych. 
3102b. . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli. The Repose in Egypt. 


Blanc Ecole Milanaise. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle . . . North Italy, v. 2. 51-62. 

Cust The Pavement Masters of Siena. 

Dohme Series : Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. Bernardino 

Gazette des Beaux Arts. v. 64, 66: 1S89, 1890. E. Molinier : 

Poldi-Pezzoli a Milan, v. 70, 1892. M. Rey- 

mond ; Cesare da Sesto. 
Heaton .... Life of Leonardo da Vinci. 
Kugler .... Italian Schools, v. 2. 410-419. 
Magazine, of Art — 1901. Oct. p. 566. Triptych by Luini at 

Morelli .... Italian Painters, v. i. 159-176: 180-194. 
MUntz . . . . L' Age d' Or. 69-99 • 302-308. Le fin de la 

Renaissance. 666-672 : 684-686. 
Symonds . . . Fine Arts. 482-484. 
Symonds . . . Sketches and Studies, v. i. 146-152. 
Williamson . Cities of North Italy : Milan. 27-124, 
Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. 2. 475- 



Outline for Study. 

His connection with Leonardo da Vinci ; limitations of 
Leonardo's influence. 

Quality of Luini's art; evidences of originality ; of the 
effect of association with early Lombard art : the refine- 
ment, grace and spirituality of his conceptions ; his calm 
and repose ; defects of his composition : compare his 
aims with those of Leonardo. 

Luini's draughtsmanship and mastery of all methods of 
painting ; his rank as fresco painter ; as colorist ; his 
peculiar use of yellow paint to take the place of gold ; 
his pupils and assistants. 


The Casa Felucca frescos ; masterpieces in Legnano, 
Saronno, Como and Lugano. 

His work in churches of Milan : San Maurizio, Luini's 

Luini's frescos and easel paintings now gathered into 
the Brera and other art museums. 


An important Lombard contemporary of Leonardo's 
school ; his originality and dramatic fire ; his own class 
of followers. 

Gaudenzio's extensive wall-painting at Varallo, Ver- 
celli, Arona, Saronno, Milan. 

Admirable qualities of his first manner: later manner 

and Michael Angelo's influence. 

FRANCESCO BONSIGNORE (Francesco da Verona). 


A Veronese contemporary of Leonardo ; influence of 
Venetian art in his early paintings ; of Mantegna in his 
later work. 

Topics for Further Research. 

San Maurizio of Milan ; its decorations and decorators* 
The Italian Lake region ; its own beauty and its art 

The story of St. Catherine of Siena. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 11 — Church of San Mauiizio — interior. 

Better known in Milan as Church of the Monastero Maggi- 
ore. It is one of the oldest churches in the city, the home of 
nuns of the Benedictine order. When the Bentivogli family 
were expelled from Bologna they settled in Milan ; a daughter 
of the house joining this chapter of nuns the church became 
their especial care and Luini was commissioned by them to 
decorate it. 

This place of worship consists of the church proper and of 
the choir or- nuns' chapel. An examination of the vaulted ceil- 
ing will show that the two audience-rooms are divided by a par- 


tition, extending entirely across the basilica, which serves as the 
screen behind the high altar of either. The frescos on the 
screen in the church proper are by Bernardino Luini. On either 
side of the altar appear the princely patrons Alessandro and his 
wife Ippolita Sforza, each attended by saints. Bernardino aleo 
painted entirely one of the two small chapels that open out of 
the nave on the right, chiefly with scenes from the life of St. 
Catherine. The color scheme of these frescos is darker, richer 
and more transparent than is usual, giving the impression of 
paintings in oil. In the nuns' chapel on the other side of the 
screen it is probable that he arranged the entire scheme of dec- 
oration, and was assisted bj^ his son Aurelio and others of his 
school : Beltraffio and Borgognone are also rep'^esented there. 

No. 3052b — The Burial of St. Catherine. > 

A fresco detached from the wall of the Casa Felucca, near 
Monza and removed in 1817 to the Brera. 

The burial is supposed to take place on Mt. Sinai. The colors, 
are still delicate, although the fresco has suffered from re- 
painting. St. Catherine of Alexandria was a favorite subject 
of Luini's brush. 

How has the artist made it appear that these forms are 
firmly sustained by the air? Is ether made palpable? 
Cf. 3130^. Is the movement swift, agitated, violent, or 
a slow, easy descent? Are the wings of sufficient size to 
carry these " birds of God " ? 

What elements give the sense of calm and restfulness 
so marked in the picture ? Does it result from lack of 
life or motion ? 

Has the Saint's body the rigidity of death ? Does her 
face express her traditional character ? 

What are the figures carved on the sarcophagus? 
Why are they introduced in connection with this inci- 
dent ? What is the meaning of the letters C. V. S. X. ? 
What ideas present themselves from the opposition of 
the form of the sarcophagus to the figures floating 
above ? 

Is this a decorative work ? 


No. 3053b — The Marriage of the Virgin. 

Fresco between the nave and choir in the Sanctuary of the 
Blessed Virgin, a Pilgrimage church at Saronno. 

How does this differ from Perugino's conception of 
the event ? Cf. 1897^. Which is most spectacular ? Which 
most probable ? Explain the action of the figures at the 
left of Joseph. 

Is there appropriate action and expression throughout 
the group ? Is the sentiment true and pure ? Is Joseph 
a prototype of Jesus ? Why should Mary be of such 
commanding stature ? Should the heads of those in the 
background be on the same level as those in front ? Is 
there any lack of perspective or sense of atmosphere ? 
Has the artist succeeded in representing a crowd? 
Has he facility in composition } 

No. 3054b — Angel presenting Vials. 

One of the minor figures in the decoration of the Pilgrimage 
Church at Saronno of which Symonds says, *'No other building 
in North Italy can boast so much that is first-rate of the work of 
Luini and Gaudenzio Ferrari." 

Explain the vials and the napkin that the angel carries. 
Has the angel just alighted or is he in a state of rest ? 
Are the indication of movement or cessation of ^movement 
consistent throughout the figure ? Is the figure instinct 
with life and strength } Is this angel a vivid personality ? 
Would he be as attractive without the wings ? 

Are there any shortcomings in the drawing of the leg ? 
Is the drapery especially suited to fresco ? Does the 
ornamentation suggest the goldsmith's love of prettiness ? 
Cf. Botticelli. Is this angel as fine a conception as Ma- 
lozzo da Forli's ? Is the sentiment of the picture pro- 
duced solely by the face or is it a general effect ? 

No. 3056^ — The Martyrdom of St. Catherine. 

Opening out of the nave of San Maurizio is the small chapel 
containing some .of the most exquisite of Luini's work, of which 
this fresco forms a part. The work, commissioned by Frances- 


CO Besozzi, was completed in 1530. Eloquent of the religious 
conceptions of the time is the fact that the model for the Saint 
was a woman of rank possessed of rare beauty but stained with 
atrocious crimes for which she was beheaded. 

Does the artist in this, in 3054^ and 3052^, prove him- 
self capable of analyzing and representing a rapid and 
vigorous movement ? Is the action natural ? Do you 
experience a thrill of horror ? Is the group of Saint and 
executioner well posed, well balanced ? Is the expression 
of their faces skillfully opposed ? 

Is the composition lacking in reality, in dramatic pow- 
er, in effectiveness? What points of advantage has this 
method of treatment ? 

Does the group on the left contribute to the interest of 
the picture ? Can the same be said of the incident de- 
picted in the upper left-hand corner ? What is its mean- 
ing ? 

No. 3057b — St. ApoUonia. 

No. 3058b — Ippolita Sforza with SS. Agnes, Cathexine 

and Scholastica. 

Frescos on the screen back of the high altar, San Maurizio, 
as seen in number 11. The Saint on the right is Catherine of 
Alexandria, instead of Lucia as printed on the Reproduction. 
These pictures are admirable examples of Luini's delightful 
scheme of color. 

Explain the various symbols in these pictures. Why 
does St. Apollonia bear two emblems of martyrdom? 
Why do SS. Agnes and Catherine carry a palm while 
St. Scholastica carries a spray of lilies ? Why does the 
latter's dress differ from that of her companions ? Is its 
ornament significant? Of what material are the garments 
of Luini's figures usually composed ? Is there less care, 
less refinement in the painting of St. Apollonia's robes 
than is usual with him? Is she calculated to inspire 
veneration, affection ? Is she thoroughly womanly ? 

Is there any especial reason for the three saints appear- 
ing with Ippolita ? Is Ippolita a portrait ? What difference 


between her face and that bending over her ? Why does 
she kneel ? 

Is there any lack of beauty, life and vivacity in all 
these faces? Are they pleasant to look at, to study? 
Are they devotional ? 

No. 3060i> — Madonna of the Rose-txellia. 

One of the best of Luini's easel pictures, painted in his third 
and most advanced period. Originally in the Certosa of Pavia. 
The columbine with which the Child is playing is a flower not 
infrequently introduced into paintings by the Milanese painters 
of this period. 

Does this Madonna resemble the Virgin in 3033^ ? 
What is the inference ? Are there other indications of 
Leonardo's influence ? 

Has this Madonna an air of distinction? Are her 
hands of elegant shape? Is her dress unusual in any 
particular ? Is the foreshortening of her arm well man- 
aged ? 

Was the background designed merely for beauty or 
has it a symbolic meaning ? Has it a more living quali- 
ty than the human figures? Is it obtrusive? Would 
Leonardo have painted it thus had he chosen this design ? 

No. 3061b — St. Anthony : detail. 

Fresco from the Church of Santa Maria di Brera, now in the 
Brera and one of the finest there. Its colors are soft and har- 
monious, the effect of gold produced by a skillful use of yellow. 
The treatment is flat. Madonna is seated on a pedestal with the 
Child standing on her knee. Below, at the left, is St. Anthony; 
on the opposite side stands St. Barbara bearing chalice and palm. 
At the foot of the pedestal sits a charming little angel musician. 

Explain the crozier and bell; the clasped book; the 
cross embroidered on the cape. What other symbol be- 
longs to this Saint. Do you see any trace of it here ? 

Are the figure and its attributes skillfully composed ? 
Are depth, atmosphere, roundness attempted ? Has the 
artist mastered the saint-like quality of the face ? At the 


expense of other qualities ? Was this a familiar type at 
this time ? Cf. 3005^ - 301 1^ ; 3130** and details. 

Is the Jbead peculiar in form or proportions ? Cf . 3 1 02**. 
Is St. Anthony a characteristic Luini figure ? 

No. 3062b — Madonna, Child and St. John. (Lunette.) 

Fresco painted for the cloisters of S. M. degli Angioli, Lugano, 
now in the first chapel on the right as one enters the church. 
** The culminating point of his genius." 

Where else have we seen this motif of the child about 
to mount the " gently protesting lamb"? Can this be 
considered a copy or imitation t How does the Child 
receive his mother^s interference ? What is in the 
mother's mind ? 

Is Madonna's costume traditional ? Is the little St. 
John more fortunate in drawing than the Angel of the 
Vials ? Are the children natural, full of life, actual ? Cf. 

What is the spiritual import ? Has the sacred symbol- 
ism of thd lamb been lost sight of ? 

How does this work differ in execution and finish from 
3060^ ? 

In which method of work does Luini excel ? What 
qualities in this picture denote that it was produced at 
the highest level of Luini's attainments ? 

No. 3064b — Family of Tobias with the Angel. 

A monochrome brush-drawing, the original design for this 
small painting is in the Ambrosiana. The drawing is a very 
characteristic work, delicately finished and superior to the paint- 

Where is the story of Tobias found ? What incident 
is illustrated here ? 

Are the different persons well characterized ? Is there 
in the angel a feeling of light and swift movement ? Is 
this movement communicated to Tobias ? 

Who are the important ones in this group ? How are 


the others subordinated ? What effect on the composition 
has the architecture with its glimpse of landscape ? 

Is this picture an improvement on 3053^ ? What char- 
acteristics appear most often in Luini's pictures ? How 
typical is this angel ? How would you characterize Lui- 

ni's work ? 


No. 3150b — The Last Supper. 

Is this an original presentation of the subject ? Is it 
treated with consummate knowledge of anatomical pro- 
portion, facial expression, linear and aerial perspective, 
laws of composition ? Are types well-selected ? Is Judas 
designated by the action of the group ? By what simple 
means is he identified ? 

Does the turbulence of the scene exceed probability ? 
Are there any incidents that give it an air of vulgarity ? 

Compare with Leonardo's Last Supper. What motives 
dominated each artist ? Why does Gaudenzio's picture 
make an ineffective appeal to us.? 

No. 3155b — Section of Interior of Cupola. 

( Fresco. ) 

The Pilgrimage Church, or Sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin, 
at Saronno, is rich in the works of Gaudenzio and of Bernardino 
Luini. Here these two masters may be seen in juxtaposition, 
each accentuating the other's individuality. 

Is this decoration rich in fancy? Has the artist 
portrayed the natural movement and arrangement of a 
crowd or was he poor in invention } Are all seen to 
advantage ? 

Are the angels playing and singing in concert or inde- 
pendently ? Are they beautiful, graceful ? Do they pose 
consciously ? Compare draperies with those in Luini*s 
frescos. Are Gaudenzio's painted with more care, more 
variety of material and fold ? 

Are the figures surrounded by air or is a flat treatment 
adopted ? Which is best decoration for this wall surface ? 


Why ? Is there such foreshortening as would result 
were actual figures seen in such a position ? Compare 
with Melozzo da Forli's angels, 1 843^-1 847^ 

No. 3185b —Head of a Saint. 

This picture is introduced to emphasize the different ideals of 
contemporarv schools that were geographically near neighbors. 
How different this attractive head by Bonsignore from those we 
are studying, both in outward appearance and in suggestion of 
character ! 

Is this face sensitive ? Strong, or capable of deep 
feeling ? Does it indicate large intellectuality ? What 
constitutes its saintly character ? 

Did the artist deal with problems of light ? Of anatom- 
ical structure ? Had he studied nature with close atten- 
tion ? Is the charm of this head positive ? What moved 
the artist to paint it ? 

Does it reflect the feeling of the early Lombards ? Of 
the early Venetians ? Is it archaic ? Wherein does it 
differ from the new Milanese School ? 


II ... Milan — Church, of S. Maurizio : interior. 
3052b. . . Milan — Brera : Burial of St. Catherine. 
3053^' • • Saronno — Pilgrimage Church: Marriage of the 

3054b . . . Saronno — Pilgrimage Church : Angel presenting 

30561> . . . Milan — S. Maurizio : Martyrdom of St. Catherine. 
305 7 b . . . Milan — S. Maurizio: St. Apollonia. 
3058b . . , Milan — S. Maurizio : Ippolita Sforza with SS. 

Agnes, Catherine and Scholastica. 
3060b. . . Milan — Brera: Madonna of the Rose-trellis. 
3061b. . . Milan — Brera: St. Anthony: detail of Madonna 

3062b . . , Lugano — S. M. degli Angioli : Madonna, Child 

and St. John : lunette. 
3064b . . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli : Tobias and the Angel. 



3150b . . . Milan — S. M. della Passione : The Last Supper. 
3155b . . . Saronno — Pilgrimage Church : section of Cupola. 


3185b. . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli : Head of a Saint. 

Blanc Ecole Milanaise. 

Dohme Series, Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. Luini. 

Halsey .... Gaudenzio Ferrari. 

Heaton .... History of Painting. 96-97. 

Jameson . . . Legends of the Monastic Orders. 

Jameson . . . Sacred and Legendary Art. 

Kugler .... Italian Schools, v. I. 266-267 : v. IL 419-428. 

Magazine of Art — 1901. October. Triptych by Luini at 

Masters in Art — 1902, December. 
Morelli .... Italian Painters, v. I. 169-170; 179-180. v. 

II. 124. 
Miintz . . . . Le fin de la Renaissance. .673-683 ; 692-693. 
Symonds. . . Fine Arts. 485-490. 
Symonds. . . Sketches and Studies, v. I. 136-139; 152-159; 

161-166. V. II. 48-65 (St. Catherine). 
Williamson . Bernardino Luini. 
Williamson . Cities of North Italy : Milan. 27-124. 
Woltmann and Woermann, History of Painting, v. TI. 480- 



Xe00on 4* 

IL 80D0MA (Qiovanni Antonio Bazzi). 1477-1549. 

Outline for Study, 

Sodoma's commanding position in the history of 
Sienese painting : his admirable traits as artist — 
originality and power, sensitiveness to grace and 
beauty, skill in narration, charm of landscape^ 
occasional brilliant artistic performance; his 
faults — lack of skill in composition, frivolity, 
haste and carelessness, uneven quality of work. 

A master of religious ecstasy; first of the De- 

His temperament — sense of humor, love of a 
jovial life, fondness for animals. 

His wanderings ; influence of Leonardo ; of Ra- 

Life in Siena ; his popularity and numerous com- 
missions ; fresco in the cloister of Monte Oli- 
veto — life of St. Benedict ; in the Oratory of 
San Bernardino — life of the Virgin ; in San 
Domenico — scenes from life of St. Catherine 
of Siena ; commissions for Palazzo Pubblico. 

Residence in Rome ; patronage of Agostino 
Chigi ; ceiling in the Camera della Segnatura; 
story of Alexander in the Farnesina. 

His portable paintings in various galleries. 

DOMENICO BECCAFUMI (Mecarino). 148&-1551. 

Beccaf umi follows Sodoma from Rome ; co-worker 
with this master in the Oratory of San Ber- 
nardino, Siena. 

His notable work on the pavement of the Cathe- 
dral, Siena. 



Peruzzi " an artist of first rank both in architec- 
ture and painting " ; early work at Rome in 
architectural and mosaic design and in painting; 
friendship of Agostino Chigi — the Farnesina ; 
other patrons of highest standing in church 
and state; later work^here ; elected head mas- 
ter of the works on St. Peter's, under Leo X. ; 
Massimi Palace. 

Peruzzi in Bologna; architect of Albergato Pal- 

His numerous buildings and paintings in Siena 
and other Tuscan cities. 

Peruzzi's literary works; large number of draw- 
ings extant. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Siena during the interval between her early and 

late school of painting; character of the Sie- 

nese : the Palio. 
The siege of Siena. 
Favorite Sienese saints. 
Pavement of the Cathedral. 
Folgore, a Sienese sonneteer. 

(Blashfield's Italian Cities, article ** Siena," is particularly 
recommended for these topics.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 


No. 3205i> — Episode in life of St. Benedict. 

(The miraculous mending of a broken sieve.) 

One of a series of 24 frescos illustrating the life of St. Bene- 
dict painted around the cloister of Monte Oliveto. The youth- 
ful Saint on his knees entreats heavenly aid, while his nurse 
stands near, also in an attitude of supplication. Outside is a 
group of citizens foremost among whom is Sodoma, accom- 
panied by his strange pets and arrayed in the rich garments pre- 
sented to him by a gentleman who had recently joined the 


How far does the picture explain itself ? Does the 
central figure draw attention away from the subject 
of the painting ? What excuse for the presence of 
this figure ? Suppose the figure removed — would the 
composition be more coherent ? 

Is there beauty in individual forms and faces? Is 
difference between the ideal and portrait heads marked ? 

What is the motif of the decoration of the pilaster ? Has 
the architecture in the middle distance an obvious con- 
nection with the subject ? Does it add to the interest of 
the picture? 

Altogether is this a well-balanced, serious composition ? 
Is it a justifiable piece of artistip work ? 

No. 3210b — Madonna and Child. 

Small painting on wood. The landscape is a sunset scene — 
"a study in tone, gemlike and brilliant." Until 1870 in a private 
collection in Germany, it was sold at auction in Cologne and 
soon after acquired for the Brera. Morelli was the first to recog- 
nize it as Sodoma's early work. 

What marks of extreme care are noticeable ? Is there 
anything to suggest the influence of Leonardo and the 
Lombards ? Are the resemblances fundamental or only 
on the surface ? 

How does Madonna^s face compare with Leonardo's 
faces in refinement ? In depth of feeling ? Are the child 
and lamb merely playmates, or is there a spiritual signifi- 
cance in their companionship ? What faults in the draw- 
ing of the little one ? Are distant landscape and fore- 
ground equally successful ? What special beauties are 
here ? 

No. 3215I) — AsBumption of the Virgin. 


One of a series in the little Oratory of San Bernardino, Siena. 
The figures exceed life-size. 

Where is Madonna's attention directed ? Is this the 
usual treatment of the subject ? What depends from her 


hand, passing through the hands of the disciple ? Has an 
attempt been made to characterize the disciples ? 

-Can you recall another instance of flowers in the sar- 
cophagus ? Explain its meaning. 

In what direction do the main lines of the composition 
run ? Is this idea consistently carried out — /. e,, are all 
the leading lines parallel or radial, and do all other lines 
fall into harmony with them? Are groups well massed 
and the genera] effect simple ? Or is there a 
sense of crowding? Cf. 3130^ Is there a feeling of 
lightness and ascending movement ? Is there too much 
symmetry ? Are the faces of the disciples deeply moved 
and earnest ? 

Cf. 3205^. Is there any gain in seriousness and 
ability ? 

No. 3217b — Christ Bound to the Column. 

Detail of a large fresco in the cloister of San Francesco, Siena, 
representing the judgment of Pilate and Scourging of Christ. 
The remaining part of the fresco has perished from dampness 
and exposure ; the Christ, having been long protected bj glass, 
was in 1842 sawn from the wall and transferred to the public 

Are the sufferings of Christ emphasized ? Is more 
than physical suffering expressed ? Is this a deeply sym- 
pathetic work ? Note the various signs of distress and 
disorder; is there any sentimentality ? Is there beauty — 
physical and intellectual ? Is the type a fitting one ? 
Cf. 2226^, 2210^, 2146**; also the Christ in 3230^ What 
representations of a suffering Christ are as worthy as 
this ? 

Is the torso well proportioned to head and limbs ? Is 
modeling accurate and delicate ? Is there lack of strength 
and boldness ? Are shadows unusually transparent ? 

What differences of treatment between this and St. 
Sebastian that are due to the difference between fresco 
and oil painting ? What advantages has each ? 


No. 3218^ — St. Sebastian. 

A banner painted in oil for the confraternity of St. Sebastian 
in Campollia, and caried in processions during times of pestilence, 
had on one side this beautiful figure, on the other Madonna in 
Glory with Saints, also a characteristic example of the artist. 
That the Society valued Sodoma*s work highly is proven by 
its refusal to part with it to citizens of Lucca for a large sum. 
The colors are cold and gray, but beauty of drawing and sense 
of atmosphere are very marked. 

Cf. 3217^. Which is the most affecting? Have the 
limits of pathos been passed in either ? (/. ^., has pathos 
become bathos?) Are these subjects conceived with 
equal nobility ? Does either convey a suggestion of the 
spectacular ? 

Cf. 1905^. In which is the form more beautiful, more 
true ? Are these synonomous ? In which is the expres- 
sion more in keeping with the event ? Is this in itself a 
commendation ? Has the artist embodied strength as 
well as beauty in face and form ? 

Has he successfully overcome the difficulties presented 
by the pose of the saint ? Have you studied other nudes 
as perfect in drawing and modeling ? (Compare studious- 
ly, selecting especially other St. Sebastians ; also 1657^.) 
Why is the forehead in shadow ? Is the picture remark- 
able for atmosphere ? 

Has Sodoma's inspiration been sustained throughout 
the composition ? Have the figures in the middle dis- 
tance any connection with the martyrdom ? Would the 
picture be more admirable were the angel omitted ? 

No. 3220b — St. Catherine receiving the Stigmata. 

Fresco on one side of the altar in a chapel dedicated to St. 
Catherine in San Domenico, Siena. It is greatly superior to 
the two other frescos by Sodoma in the same chapel — one, the 
Communion of St. Catherine ; the second, the Penitent Thief 
converted by the Saint's prayer at the moment of his execution. 
The vision of Christ being granted to this Saint she received 
in her hands and side the marks of the crucifixion. 

Are the relaxation and lifelessness of a swoon satisfac- 


torily rendered ? Does the face suggest ecstasy ? What 
is the feeling of the attendant nuns? Are they con- 
scious of the stigmata ? 

Is the group well arranged ? Are its lines easy ? Is it 
properly balanced by the figures above ? Are the two 
groups connected ? How does the angel on the left aid 
the composition ? 

Explain the sudden termination of the pier in the 
center. To what period does the decoration belong? Is 
it the same style as that in 3205^ ? Is it in any sense 
appropriate to the event ? 

Do the lines about Christ recall those about Madonna 
in 3130^ ? Have they the same effect on the buoyancy 
of the figure? 

No. 3225i> — Christ in Limbo. 


Commissioned by the Company of Santa Croce, detached 
from the wall on which it was painted and transferred to the 
public gallery. Christ raises Abel from the earth, while Adam 
and Eve stand near. 

Is Eve a figure of unusual beauty ? Cf. St. Sebastian. 
Are both treated with equal tenderness? Is the pose 
similar? Is this form, in proportions and modeling, 
distinctively feminine ? How much of the difference 
between the two figures is due to difference of medium 
in which they are painted ? 

What is expressed by the faces of the four principal 
personages ? Is Christ treated with deep religious feel- 
ing ? with irreproachable taste ? Have you seen else- 
where a banner like that borne by Him ? Is there 
anything to justify its excessive convolutions ? 

Is the scene appropriately located ? How does the 
landscape compare in interest and beauty with others by 
Sodoma ? 


General Questions on Sodoma. 

Do the works that we have studied disprove the 
charge of coarseness and habitual levity made against 
Sodoma? Is he completely master of facial expression ? 
Are his faces as deeply interesting as Leonardo's or 
Luini's best — Le,^ do they suggest as much and invite 
contemplation as long ? Can you reach the end of con- 
jecture in looking at the faces of either of these artists ? 

Is there a sentiment of delicacy throughout Sodoma's 
pictures? (Study especially 3210^,3217^.) Do they 
possess an unusual feeling for space and atmosphere ? 
How is the close similarity of his landscapes to be 
accounted for, considering that these pictures extend over 
a period of twenty or more years? Which are most like 
nature ? 

No. 2398^ — Moses striking the Rock. 

(Published with Outlines Number One.) 

This design for a section of the pavement of the Cathedral. 
Siena is a Mosaic of light and dark marbles, with details ex- 
pressed by incised lines filled with a dark substance (graffito). 

Are the incidents arranged with artistic feeling ? Is 
there any confusion ? Is the space well filled ? Is it 
crowded ? Is all clear and logical ? Any resemblance 
to 3232** ? Is there a pleasing distribution of lights and 
darks ? Is the design broadly massed or spotty ? Is 
this good decoration ? Why ? 

No. 3232b — St. Catherine receiving the Stigmata. 

Can this artist be said to belong to the new school of 
thought ? Why ? Have we here an original master or a 
careful student and imitator ? How is attention riveted 
upon the central figure ? Does she keep her place in 
space ? 

Is the lower part of the picture conceived in a different 
spirit from the upper ? Has the vision of Madonna any 


connection with the subject ? Is the solemnity of the 
scene marred by any circumstance ? Cf. 3220^ . Is this 
an equally satisfactory representation ? 

Does the landscape recall Sodoma's? Is this fine 
feeling for atmosphere and clearness found in other 
painters? Cf. 2225^ and others. 

No. 3240^ — Sibyl announcing the Nativity to Augustus. 


Why these signs of disturbance ? Is the Sibyl prop- 
erly contrasted ? Is she the true mouth-piece of fate, 
indifferent to the perturbation she causes ? Is the 
vision in the clouds seen by Augustus and his attend- 
ants ? Why is it introduced ? 

Is this a powerful presentation of the theme ? Are 
the proportions of the figures normal ? Are they such 
as were adopted by Leonardo and his followers ? By 
Sodoma ? 

What indications of Pinturicchio's influence ? Is the 
picture a good wall decoration ? 


3205*^. . . Monte Oliveto — Cloister: Episode from the life of 

St. Benedict — Miraculous mending of the broken 

3210^. . . Milan — Brera : Madonna and Child. 
3215*^ . . . Siena — Oratory of S. Bernardino: Assumption of 

the Virgin. 
3217b. . , Siena — Academy: Christ bound to the Column. 
3218^. . . Florence — Uffizi : St. Sebastian. 
3220^. . . Siena — S. Domenico : St. Catherine receiving the 

3225b. . . Siena — Academy: Christ in Limbo. 


2398b. . . Siena — Cathedral: Design for pavement — Moses 
striking the Rock. 
(Published with Outlines Number One.) 


3232b . . . Siena — Academy : St. Catherine receiving the Stig- 

3240b. . . Siena — Church of Fontegiusta : Sibyl predicting to 
Augustus the coming of Christ. 

Blanc Ecole Milanaise. 

Blashfield . . . Italian Cities, v. I. 89-135 ; 145-162. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle . . . Painting in Italy, v, II. 384-402. 

Cosmopolitan, 1890, June. . . Siena's Mediaeval Festival. 

Cust The Pavement Masters of Siena. 

Dohme Series of Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Dohme Series, Keane^s translation ; German, French and Italian 

painters. 466-485. 
Douglas . . . History of Siena. 164-177; 182-185; 231-264; 

396-418; 425-432; 470-471. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1878. v. 42. C. Timbal, Antonio da 

Bazzi, surnomm^ le Sodoma. 
Gilbert .... Landscape in Art. 244-246. 
Heywood. . . Our Lady of August and the Palio of Siena. 
Kugler .... Italian Schools, v. II. 544-549. 
Magazine of Art — 1894, September, October. The Wonder of 

Morelli . . . . Italian Painters, v. I. 135-137; 151-159. 
Muntz .... Le fin de la Renaissance. 515-532; 534-536. 
PriuliBon .... — Sodoma. 

Review of Reviews — 1892, March. Siena and its Patro-races. 
Richter .... Siena (German). 

Symonds . . Sketches and Studies, v. III. 47-48 : 66-86. 
Vasari .... Lives, etc. v. III. 353-381 : 397-416. 
Woltmann andWoermann — History of Painting, v. II. 566- 

571 : 573-574- 




Italian Sculpture axd Painting 

a two years' course 

Issued in Monthly Parts prom October until May 


The first year includes the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries, the second year, beginning with Leonardo da Vinci, 
includes the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 


We publish half-tone reproductions of the subjects studied 
in the Outlines, many of which are not obtainable elsewhere. 
These or their equivalent are indispensable. They are prepared 
from our own carefully selected photographs and constitute the 
only series adapted to the serious study of art. 

Price, I cent each. In sets to match the Outlines, 80 cents per 
loO. Complete set for the first year, 385, price, $3.00. Postage 
charged on orders of less than 10 pictures. 


We furnish the books mentioned in our bibliography or 
others, carriage free, at prices varying from list to 20 per cent 

Lectures on art and kindred topics by the President of the 
Bureau, and others of the force, are in increasing demand. A 
sample lecture or lesson aids greatly in the establishment of our 
method of study and is invariably followed by enthusiastic in- 
terest in the development of our work. Early engagements are 


Courses in art study given in Boston during the Winter include 
training for individual research. Such courses will soon be or- 
ganized in other cities. A limited number of clubs for art study 
are conducted under our own auspices and aid is furnished in 
the formation of others. 


These are organized in both America and Europe, under ex- 
perienced leaders, during the Holiday, Easter and Summer 

201 Clarendon Street, Boston, Mass. 


Number Ten. 

By Louise M. Powe. 

On the threshold of the sixteenth century — the High 
Renaissance — it may be profitable to review the paint- 
ing of the last thirty or forty years of the fifteenth : a 
period not characterized by the surprises and innovations 
of the few previous decades, but by steady progress 
toward the culmination of growth in art. It was a period 
of development of widely divergent ideals and the 
focussing of related characteristics into well-defined 
schools. Geographically the schools of Florence, Siena, 
Perugia, Venice, Milan were near neighbors, but each 
had its peculiar aims and special attainments. 

In each group of artists there was also specialization 
by individuals. The perception of the beautiful is the 
fundamental idea of art; the essential qualification of 
an artist is an intense desire to imitate, reproduce or in 
some way express the beauty that he has seen. Whether 
it is the beauty of material form or the intangible beauty 
of spirit to which the true artist may have been drawn, 
he is fascinated by it and rests not until he has given 
it expression. 

What profoundly interests one generation excites the 
wonder of another that such things could have engaged 
attention for even a fleeting moment. Why did mediaeval 
monstrosities in stone or ivory or on the illuminated page 
interest contemporaries? What excuse was there for 
their continued production? To us they make only a 
feeble appeal through their pathetic helplessness and 
naYvete — that helplessness to express itself that per- 
sisted, in a certain degree, nearly through the fifteenth 

There were men among both painters and carvers 
whose work was done without inspiration and without 

love — save such as the artisan gives his tools. Between 
these men and those who possessed rich artistic gifts, 
keen aesthetic perception and lofty aims, were numerous 
grades of the artistically competent and incompetent. 
Those who achieved distinction usually attained to it 
along some line of specializatipn. Few were well- 
rounded artists. Occasionally one was perfect within 
his limits ; in Masaccio's work is no fault ; it shows 
ability, it has loftiness, attractiveness — it stimulates and 
satisfies ; it embodies the essentials of perfect art. 

Did no one, then, pass beyond Masaccio? Yes, cer- 
tainly. Although an advanced mind he was still a child 
of his time ; his art was somewhat elementary — was not 
an exponent of the larger knowledge of form and chiar- 
oscuro that the artist of the latter part of his century 
fell heir to ; it was broad and simple, owing little of its 
excellence to detail. It is so far, however, from being 
childlike that in the long list of Italian painters few are 
found so dignified, temperate, restrained. 

Because of his perfectly balanced temper Masaccio is 
less vividly interesting than the great specialists. The 
novel, the strange and the puzzling always attract attention, 
arouse curiosity and induce thought. The specialist en- 
gages in his chosen line of effort with intelligence and 
enthusiasm, discovering infinite interest and charm in 
apparently the dryest subject of research, whether it be 
the geometrical problems of linear perspective or the 
setting together of joints in the human frame. Other 
matters seem of slight consequence — the picture as a 
whole is lost sight of. So while he may approach per- 
fection in parts, his work otherwise may be marred by 
such faultiness and shortcomings as to destroy its value 
as a whole. 

The earliest example of this one-sided development 
was Uccello, whose intense devotion to the study of per- 
spective did not prevent the most absurd disproportion 

of his men to surrounding objects, nor other glaring 
faults in drawing. 

The exceeding spirituality of Fra Angelico's saintly 
beings and the heavenly sweetness of their faces do not 
blind us to their formlessness and frequent woodenness. 
This sweetness is shed over angels, saints and Roman 
soldiers undiscriminatingly. The good Frate's religious 
absorption and his neglect of the study of the actual 
world are equally in evidence ; and because he was a 
highlyvendowed artist with an exquisite feeling for beauty 
and grace, the regret is the more poignant that the sav- 
ing quality of common sense was not exercised by him 
and that his monastic vows had interfered no more with 
his art than in Fra Lippo Lippi's case. 

Signorelli's preoccupation with anatomy, joined with a 
highly developed imagination, produced the impressive 
frescos of Orvieto, where the nude human form is dis- 
played in every variety of attitude, drawn with extraor- 
dinary freedom, boldness, inventiveness and dramatic 
instinct ; on the other hand, he lacked skill in the hand- 
ling of large masses and was deficient in a sense of the 
pictorial so that some of his great compositions came 
perilously near to suggesting the diagram. Richly 
gifted, deep thinker, conscientious student, yet Signorelli 
fell short of a perfect balance of artistic qualities. 

Perugino, the facile painter of sweetness and light, 
surcharges his works with sentimentality and peoples 
his canvases with impossible beings ; his beautiful 
color and fine feeling for atmosphere cannot offset his 
very obvious defects — defects not beyond the power 
of so talented an artist to correct, but the result of a 
lack of artistic concern in the perfection of his work. 

Our interest is keen in the psychological character of 
paintings by Botticelli, the mystic; in the haunting 
suggestiveness of the faces of his Madonnas and mytho- 
logical personages, in the curious beauty of his types, in 


the rhythm of their undulating movements. If to his 
mastery of expression he had united correct drawing, 
to what heights might not this gifted master have at- 
tained ! Our pleasure in the world of conjecture and 
speculation that he has opened to us is checked by the 
consciousness of peculiarities that are faults rather than 
graces — of disjointed limbs and incorrect proportions, 
with resulting awkwardness of pose and gesture. 

Ghirlandajo erred in another direction through the 
very plentitude of common sense. His artistic vision 
did not penetrate beneath the surface of things. His 
well-drawn, well-painted, sedate pet) pie are psychologi- 
cally uninteresting because of the absence of those qual- 
ities that Perugino and Botticelli carried to the verge of 
extravagance. Able as this artist was, we feel no regret 
that the commission to paint the walls of Florence was 
not forthcoming. 

In the schools of northern Italy, Mantegna, ardent 
student of classic antiquities, immensely capable in 
draughtsmanship and composition, painted pictures 
characterized by intelligence and feeling, and sometimes 
by beauty. On occasion the note of the commonplace 
is dominant, as in the Mantuan frescos ; or there is a 
strain of the unearthly beauty of Botticelli, as in St. 
George ; or a tender woman's face realizes our ideal of 
Madonna, as in Mary with her child and her parents in 
the Dresden gallery; or he may win applause by a tour de 
force in foreshortening, as the Dead Christ, or the 
Roman guards in the Resurrection. But what he has 
done lacks the touch of life ; the sense of the statuesque, 
of the immobility of bronze or marble, is never absent. 

Had Melozzo da Forli produced more work, or had 
more been preserved, he might have been proven an 
artist in whom all essentials were united in harmonious 
balance. He was, like Mantegna, an innovator, but one 
who was almost completely successful in blending correct 


observation of form with beauty and feeling, and he 
painted in that broad, simple manner that eliminates 
faultiness, as did Masaccio. 

In the course of his long life Giovanni Bellini attained 
to high excellence in painting. Simply religious, not 
occupied with the curious learning of his day, he devoted 
himself to the mastery of the secrets of color, and painted 
noble visions of beauty in a sane, healthy manner, with 
no suggestion of unutterable, spiritual experiences, no 
agitation of any sort. The stamp of technical mastery 
is on all of his later work : but after the zest afforded by 
the vigorous intellectuality of Mantegna and the delicate 
aestheticism of Botticelli, we feel that a man who is par 
excellence and only a painter is not a well-rounded artist. 

If we search still further we find Carpaccio, quaint 
designer and admirable colorist, whose work has pas- 
sages of satisfying propriety of sentiment and beauty but 
leaves a general impression of oddity. 

Or Francia, whose best pictures stand on a high level 
of loveliness and sincerity, whose tender, holy women and 
beautiful landscapes prove the fulness of his artistic im- 
pulse, and whose work in general, although it lacks in- 
tellectual vigor, presents that balance that makes it 
complete within its limitations. 

But the fifteenth century did not close without witness- 
ing the rise of a painter, in whom were blended in bal- 
anced measure the qualities that make for great art : a 
man in whom were united so many talents, such broad 
intelligence, such keen insight, such capacity for work 
that he must have been supreme in any department of 
effort. Painting was but one — and apparently not the 
most important — of many interests. Of large intellect- 
ual calibre, any subject that he handled lay completely 
within his grasp. Educated in the best schools of his 
day, reared in the city which, in letters and art, was the 
most advanced in Europe, coming in contact with artists 


of such strong bias as Verocchio, Piero PoUajuolo and 
Botticelli, he seems to have been unswayed by his com- 
panions and immediate predecessors or by antique art. 
His individuality was distinct in the earliest of his de- 
signs and he created a precedent for himself to which he 
was faithful throughout his life. 

Uninfluenced by classic ideals, the art of Leonardo da 
Vinci was based upon direct study of nature. His atti- 
tude was that of the scientific investigator, without predis- 
position, intent only on finding Nature's laws. What 
other great artist of his day approached her in this 
temper — searching as to causes, passive as to impres- 
sions ? Sensitively alive to all beauty he discovered the 
interest or the grace that exists in all situations, in all 
objects. Possibly the temptation to undue emphasis that 
besets artists found, in Leonardo's case, a safety valve 
in his caricatures — sketches that were exercises in ex- 
pression, at once a study and an amusement. His 
paintings and cartoons — his serious work — never 
passed beyond the restraints of disciplined taste nor 
transcended in outward form what the least imaginative 
observer may daily see around him. But the depth of 
his sympathetic insight into mind and soul was immeas- 
urable. His pictures convey the suggestion of infinite 
possibilities of inner experience. 

His results were not arrived at without elaborate 
study and preparation. Masaccio painted no face so 
full of meaning as Mona Lisa, because he did not paint 
detail. The detail in which consists the expression of 
refinement or subtlety of mood was analyzed by Leo- 
nardo and distinctly understood ; he seized the secret of 
the soul. This study of detail involved the careful finish 
that distinguishes Leonardo's few extant works — the 
finish that is not meaningless but is necessary to complete 

His preoccupation with study of nature forbade the 


introduction of any affectation or any triviality into his 
paintings : every line, every well-considered accessory is 
directly contributory to the explanation of the central 
thought. In this consists the absolute justness of his 
work. There is never an unnatural pose ; that which 
distinguishes his faces we have all seen and felt number- 
less times. He realized that exalted or unusual moods 
found expression not in strained or impossible attitudes 
and gestures, but in those that are normal and easy. 
He defined the slight but subtle difference in bodily and 
facial expression of the mind alert and excited, and the 
mind at rest. In his Last Supper the action is con- 
trolled by easy and flowing lines — no abruptness, no 
, angularities, no strained or distorted faces ; yet can it be 
doubted for an instant that this is a moment of surprise, 
of profound excitement and intense emotion ? He was 
thoroughly naturalistic, like Masaccio, but had advanced 
beyond that artist in depicting more complex emotions. 
The disciples in Masaccio 's Tribute Money, cannot 
be imagined in such attitudes as those in Leonardo's Last 
Supper — with such mobility of movement, such sugges- 
tion of the muscular minutiae of action. Masaccio rested 
content within a more limited sphere of achievement, yet 
doing perfectly what he attempted ; Leonardo attained 
to a similar perfection in a much wider field. 

He set the standard of absolute naturalism. He de- 
monstrated that the signs of any emotion, however pro- 
found or delicate or undefinable, may be transfixed and 
read on canvas or panel as unmistakably as on the liv- 
ing countenance. No artist has ever advanced that 
standard ; Leonardo's work stands pre-eminent today. 

In the work of some of his pupils and followers is so 
intimate a blending of the earlier Lombard characteristics 
of sweetness, mildness and love of beauty with Leo- 
nardo's subtlety and spiritual suggestiveness as to raise 
the question how far the master's own ideals were 


affected by his Lombard associations. That his work 
was not more widely known in his day and his following 
not larger may be due to his establishment during his 
most productive period at a small provincial court. 

That the school formed there by him came under a 
strong and convincing influence is shown by its faithful 
transmission of his traits. The works of his school are 
known by beauty of face, normal proportions, natural 
pose and expression, more or less of the technical quality 
called " sfumato," by purity and elevation of sentiment, 
absolute sincerity and irreproachable taste. A few artists 
of the Italian Renaissance may have dwelt in a more 
exalted mental state than Leonardo, but none have left so 
valuable a legacy to their followers — the lesson of 
absolutely truthful, unaffected expression of the best, the 
most beautiful, the most subtle in human experience. 

Special Bibliograpbi?. 

Number Ten. 

Blandy, Stella. Le Capitaine atuc pieds nus. Paris, 
Delagrave, 1897. 3fr. 50c. 

Bosaebeui, M. L. lie Bemin. (Les Artistes Cel^bres.) 
Paris, Librairie de 1' Art. (Announced, 1894.) 

Cellini, Benvenuto. Treatises on Gk>ldsmithing and Sculp- 
ture. 111. N. Y., Scribner, 1890. (Edition of 1899, limited, 

Clausse, Gustave. lies San Gallo. 3 v., 111. Paris, 1900- 
1903. $6.00 per volume. 

Especially useful to students of architecture. 

Destree, Olivier Georges. The Renaissance of Sculpture 
in Belgium. N. Y., Macmillan, 1895. Paper, 75c. 

The period treated is the nineteenth century ; but the introduction gives an 
historical account of Belgium sculpture from the Gothic epoch. 

Dimier, L. Benvenuto Cellini a la Cour de France. 
Paris, Leroux, 1898. Paper, 3fr. 

Fabriczy, Cornelius von. Medallien der Italienische 
Renaissance. 111. Leipzig, Seeman, 1903. 

This inexpensive volume, abundantly illustrated with excellent half-tones, 
is a boon to those to whom the costly works of Heiss and others are inacces. 

Goethe, J. W. von. Sammtliche Werke. v. XII. 

Hare, Augustus. Cities of Northern and Central Italy. 
2 V. London, Allen. 12s. 6d. 

Ijongueville, Thomas. Chisel, pen and poignard ; or Ben- 
venuto Cellini, his life and time& 111. London, Longmans, 

1899. 5s. 

Written in a popular and animated style. While not to be recommended as 
a substitute for Cellini's Autobiography, it may be read in connection there- 
with and aid in the forming of a well-rounded understanding of the man. 


Macdonell, Anne. Life of Benvenuto Cellini. 2 v. (Temple 
Autobiographies.) London, Dent, 1903. 

Math&ws, Charles Thompson. Story of Architecture. 

N. Y., Appleton, 1896. $3.00. 

Molinier, Emile. Benvenuto Cellini. 111. (Les Artistes 
Cel^bres.) Paris, Librairie de TArt, 1894. Paper, 3fr. 50c. 
Venise, ses arts decoratifs, Paris, 1889. 

The small monographs forming the series of Les Artistes Celebres are 
usually written by authors who are accepted as authorities on their subject. 

Venise is a laree and sumptuous volume, especially valuable for its profuse 
illustrations that include many not elsewhere obtainable. 

Miintz, Eugene. Histoire de 1' Art pendant la Renaissance. 
Le fin de la Renaissance. Paris, 1895. 35fr. ( ?) 

Readers of this interesting and valuable series by the lamented M. Muntz 
must regret that his illuminating history does not cover also the period of 
the Decadence of Italian Art. 

Plon, Eugene. Benvenuto Cellini, orfevre, medailleur, 
sculpteur. Colored and text ill. Paris, 1885. 6ofr. 
The most important work published on the life of Cellini. 

Reymond, Marcel. La Sculpture Florentine. Le ZVIe 
Siecie. 111. Florence, Alinari. 

The fourth and last volume of this invaluable work. 

Shedd, Mrs. Julia. Faunous Sculptors and Sculpture. 

Boston, Houghton, 1896. $2.00. 

fikchonfeld, A. Andrea Sansovino und seine Schule. 

Stuttgart, 1881. 

Spooner, S. Biographiced History of the Fine Arts. N. Y. , 
Putnam, 1867. 

It is to be regretted that this book is now out of print as the later compilers 
of art dictionaries have omitted many distinguishea sculptors. But Spooner's 
work may still be found in old libraries. 

Sturgis, Russell, European Architecture. $4.00. 

S3rnionds, T. A. Life of Benvenuto Cellini. 2 v. N. Y., 
Scribner, 1896. $2.50. 

A fascinating translation of the famous Autobiography. The introduction 
is a brilliant characterization of Cellini. An English reviewer, comparing 
Anne Macdonell's recent translation with Syraonds', observes that the latter 
had fallen under the spell of Cellini's over-bearing personality and judged him 
according to his own standards, while Macdonelf applied to him the normal 
standard of morality; for even by his contemporaries Cellini was regarded as 
a desperado. 

'Wauters, A. J. The Flemish School of Painting. (The 
Romanists.) London and N. Y., Cassell, 1885. 5s. 

Young, N. Story of Rome. (Mediaeval Towns Series.) 
London, Dent. $1.75. 


Fortnightly Review, 1887. v. 47, January i. 
Forum, 1900. v. 29, March. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1883. v. 52. 
Harper's Magazine, 1890. v. 80, Febuary. 
Littell's Living Age, 1887. v. 172, February 5. 
Magazine of Art. v. 53. 
Nineteenth Century, 1892. v. 31. 
Scribner's Magazine, 1899. v. 6, October. 


Xc00on0 I an& 2. 



ANDREA SANSOVINO (Andrea Contucci del Monte £kui- 

savino). 1460-1529. 

Outline for Study, 

Parallel between Andrea^s childhood and Giotto's. 
Bias given to his thought by his early masters 

and by the antiques of the Medici Collection. 
His work as illustration of the transition from 

Quattro-cento to Cinque-cento ideals — from 

sentiment to form. 
Influence of Donatello and Civitali ; examples, 

early terra-cottas in the churches of his native 

town; sculptures in Santo Spirito, Florence. 
Andrea's architectural work. 
Service under King John in Portugal. 
His sculptures in Italy between 1500 and 1506; 

Baptism of Christ the first sign of the new 

Tombs of the Cardinals in S. M. del Popolo, 

Rome, illustrative of late Renaissance ideals — 

compare tombs of earlier Florentine sculptors. 
His reliefs on the marble screen enclosing the 

Santa Casa, Loreto ; his co-laborers there ; 

engineering works. 
Sansovino an eclectic sculptor; largeness of 

style ; want of deep feeling ; contemporary 

appreciation of him. 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Baptistery at Florence — treasure-house of 
tradition and art. 

The Holy House at Loreto. (Enc Brit. ; Bae- 
deker, North Italy ; Hare.) 


Etruscan and early Roman monuments to the 
dead, (von Reber : Mitchell.) 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 2000a — The BaptiBm of Christ. 

Marble group ; its position over Ghiberti's " Gates of Para- 
dise " may be understood by reference to Reproduction No. 6, 
exterior view of the Baptistery of Florence. 

Christ and John the Baptist were left incomplete by Andrea 
because of other urgent commissions. Remaining in the Opera 
del Duomo for many years after his death, they were finally 
finished by Vincenzo Danti (1530-1576). The angel was a later 
addition by Innocenzo Spinazzi, in the eighteenth century. 

Is our interest in this Christ psychological ? Is this 
beautiful, youthful form consistent with the Christian idea 
of His mission on earth ? Is the sentiment expressed 
by face and gesture adequate ? Would deep emotion be 
natural at this moment ? Is this representation in ac- 
cordance with classic custom — /'. ^., was presentation of 
character subordinated to study of form ? Compare 
Sansovino's treatment of the nude with earlier artists' : 
1666^, 1544*, 1528*, 1236*, 1230*, 1 1 57*, and others. 
Which is more simple, more broad, more realistic, more 
artistic ? 

Compare the Baptist with 1456* . Which is the more 
appropriate ? The more virile ? Does Ssmsovino con- 
sistently carry out the scriptural idea of costume ? Does 
the sleeve appeal to our sense of fitness ? Is the drapery 
dignified — interesting with avoidance of anything unnec- 
essary? Cf. 1544*, 1238*5 1230,* 1 189*. Is the later 
work an advance ? 

Is the representation of water falling from a bowl 
legitimate in sculpture ? Would the mind be satisfied if 
the application of water were merely suggested by the 
position of bowl or hand ? Is this bit of realism in the 
interest of a fuller understanding of the rite ? Does it 
contribute to the finish and beauty of his performance ? 


Which is the more satisfactory type — Christ or John ? 
How are the two figures brought into a properly related 
group ? Is there symmetry ? Lack of balance ? Does 
the group lose because not placed in a niche ? 

Does the angel seem a part of the original design ? Is 
there the same feeling of repose as in the other figures ? 
The same evidences of care and study in composition and 
finish ? The same type of face and figure ? What are 
the differences and what do they indicate ? 

No. 2005a — Monument of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza. 

No. 2006» —Prudence : detail of 2005^ . 

Erected in 1506 at the instance of Pope Julius II., together 
with the very similar monument of Cardinal Girolamo della 
Rovere. Prudence has been called one of the most beautiful 
figures of the Renaissance. 

Compare with similar subjects treated in the Outlines for 
December and May, first year's course: 1228*, 1376*, 
1415*, 1417*, 1428*, 1482*, 1619*. What change in 
ideals of tomb and altar composition ? Which is more 
closely related to the decorative scheme of a building ? 
Which artist has most successfully freed himself from 
the rigidity of architectural design ? Is the most satis- 
factory design that in which architecture and sculpture 
are in nearly equal proportions ? 

Which of these examples accomplishes best the object 
of a monument to the Christian dead? Why? How 
does 2005* differ from the others ? 

Compare in relief ornament with 1482*, 1228*. What 
changes are noted ? Has Sansovino invented a new style 
or is it anticipated in a measure in 1415*, 1376*, 1125*? 
What is the inference ? 

What is the most important feature of Sforza's tomb — 
i, ^., what attracts the eye first and holds attention long- 
est? What should be the center of interest? Is the 
composition restful ? Does the predominance of hori- 


zontal lines aid in the cheerful effect of a design ? Em- 
phasis on vertical lines in its solemnity ? What are the 
functions of the various decorative and symbolical figures ? 
How appropriate to a tomb ? 

Compare the effigy of the dead with others. How do 
you interpret the attitude ? What reasons for the change 
and what for the retention of the rigid recumbent figure ? 
Have all the mortuary figures we have studied been 
devoid of flexibility and other qualities of the living ? 
Cf. 1615*. Which conception is the most artistic? 

What is the significance of the symbols held by Pru- 
dence ? Why is this a satisfactory representation of an 
abstract idea ? In how far is it a study from life ? To 
what age and country does the costume belong ? Are the 
proportions of the figure like those of Sansovino's 
Christ ? Are they unusual m any way ? Is there any 
suggestion of Civitali^s influence or that of earlier Renais- 
sance work ? Cf. 1487*. Is it an original conception? 
Is it an imitation of the antique? Cf. 1238*, 1230*, 
1 189* ; study also in this connection 1002*, 702*, 701*, 
501*, 320*. 

Is the ornament of the enclosing columns tasteful? 
Is it agreeably proportioned to the figure of Prudence ? 

JACOPO SANSOVINO (Jacopo Tatti). 1487-1570. 
*' A master renowned in sculpture and great in architecture." 

Outline for Study, 

Jacopo's designs for important works in architec- 
ture and sculpture ; an enthusiastic student of 
the antique ; his long career of unwearied pro- 
ductivity; power to attract the regard of the 

Connection with Andrea del Sarto and Andrea 
Sansovino in early life at Florence. 

With the architect Giuliano San Gallo in Rome ; 


reputation acquired for works in bronze and 

models in wax; copy of the Laocoon group. 

Artistic and literary circle in the Eternal City. 
Return to Florence; classic influence illustrated 

by his Bacchus ; statue of St. James, in the 

Jacopo's brilliant career in Venice; effect on 

Venetian architecture ; grace and splendor of 

his style ; official position and social popularity. 
Degeneration of his later style; statues in the 

Loggetta and other sculptures in the round ; 

bronze reliefs in San Marco. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Relation of sculpture to architecture. (Forum.) 

The Old Library of Venice. 

Campanile in the Piazza San Marco and its 

Sack of Rome and the disastrous results to art. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 12 — Loggetta. 

Attached to the base of the Campanile located opposite San 
Marco and the Ducal Palace. While totally out of harmony 
with the tower, the Loggetta has always been admired for its 
intrinsic elegance. Study the proportions and balance of the 
different parts of the structure. 

Adaptations from the Roman style of architecture are : the 
round arches ; the columns advanced in front of the wall, each 
set upon a podium and supporting nothing; the ** broken en- 
tablature " jutting out over the capitals ; the attic, or story 
above the entablature. The balustrade is a characteristic feature 
of the revived classic style of the early part of the sixteenth 
century. The symbolical figures in the niches are among 
Jacopo's most important sculptures. 

(The Loggetta was destroyed by the fall of the tower in 1902. 
It is believed that the Venetian government will rebuild both 


No. 20e2a — Bacchus. 

Marble statue executed in Florence after Jacopo's return from 
Rome where he had become imbued with the classic spirit. 
At the feet of the god sits an infant satyr. 

Is this merely a study of the nude ? Or had the 
sculptor the larger intention of representing nature in a 
certain mood ? Is there any trace of religious mysti- 
cism ? Cf. Leonardo da Vinci's Bacchus, 3033^. Which 
is more joyous ? Is there in Jacopo's Bacchus any 
alloy of care, of misgivings past or future ? Is it as 
devoid of intellectual quality as a flower ? What other 
qualities of physical nature does it suggest ? 

Consider as a study of form ; does it express move- 
ment ? What kind of movement ? Is it treated broadly.^ 
Cf. 1666^. Without consciousness of anatomical detail ? 
Cf. 1528% 1657^ How is it childlike both physically 
and psychologically? 

How are balance and rhythm indicated ? Is the ac- 
tion satisfactorily expressed ? Cf. 2000*. What attri- 
butes of Bacchus do you note ? How does this resem- 
ble Andrea Sansovino's work ? 

No. 2085^ — Mercury. 

A comparatively late work in bronze ; for its position refer to 
the view of the Loggetta. The god is here represented in 
the character of patron of commerce. 

Are the reasons for clothing the figure allegorical or 
artistic ? Is it an especially decorative figure ? Why? 
Would a nude figure harmonize as well with these par- 
ticular architectural forms ? 

Compare with the Bacchus. Are proportions the 
same ? Action as easy? Does it seem a living creature 
instinct with the impulse of movement ? Is that desi- 
rable in sculpture ? Is there anything like this among 
earlier sculptures? 

Is the treatment of drapery particularly successful? 


Why ? Have you a distinct feeling of pleasure in fol- 
lowing the movement of the tunic over the torso ? What 
else do you enjoy about the statue ? 

How does this vary from the usual technique of 
bronze ? Is it like the treatment of sculpture in general ? 

No. 2090a _ Sacristy Door. 

Bronze reliefs on the door leading into the Sacristy of S. 
Marco. Among the projecting heads in the border are said to 
be portraits of Titian, Aretino and Jacopo himself. 

Are the stories in the panels clearly told ? Is the 
composition simple or intricate? How does the treat- 
ment resemble Ghiberti's Gates ? Are Sansovino's panels 
as quiet and broad ? Which artist was more interested 
in the story ? Which in pictorial effect ? Which used the 
simplest means ? 

Which border is most appropriate ? Does Sanso vino's 
border help or detract from the panels ? Which door is 
most decorative considering its position (one inside the 
building, the other outside)? Which the most serious art ? 

No. 2095a — Miracle of St. Anthony. 

One of a series of nine reliefs, by different sculptors, that 
embellish the walls of a chapel dedicated to the Saint. The 
incident here depicted is the resuscitation of a drowned girl 
through the Saint's prayers. 

How does Jacopo rank as an illustrator ? (Study in 
connection with panels of the Sacristy Door.) Has he 
a strong feeling for picturesqueness ? For decorative 
effect? Are these works animated, strong? Is emo- 
tion overdrawn ? Is there any listlessness ? 

What part do all these persons play in the incident of 
the miracle ? Which is the mother ? Why is the saint's 
dress different from that of the others ? Are there any 
of his peculiar attributes ? 

Do these forms show the artist at his best ? Why ? 
Is the beauty of their faces that of real persons who 
may be seen daily ? 


On how many planes are these figures represented ? 
Note that most of the heads are on one horizontal line. 
Is this contrary to rules of perspective ? How are some 
made to retire? How are stiffness and monotony 
avoided? Is the device of opposing lines obtrusive? 
Does the background help the composition ? 

General Questions on the Sansovini, 

Is Jacopo easy and inventive in composition ? Does 
his inspiration ever fail ? Are his personages always 
alive ? Is virility a quality of his statues ? Of An- 
drea's ? What traits have the two sculptors in common ? 
How do they differ from earlier sculptors? Do you 
understand the signs of classic influence ? 

Were the Sansovini always serious ? Were they in- 
spired by religious sentiment ? What does their work 
lack to make them artists of the first rank ? How does 
Jacopo reflect Venetian materialism and love of splendor ? 



20oO'i . . . Florence — Baptistery. Baptism of Christ. (Angel 

by Innocenzo Spinazzi.) 
2005a . . . Rome — S. M. del Popolo. Monument of Cardinal 

Ascanio Sforza. 
2006a . . , Prudence : detail of 2005* . 

2085 a 


Venice — Campanile. Loggetta. 
Florence — Bargello. Bacchus. 
Venice — Campanile, Loggetta. Mercury. 
Venice — San Marco. Door of the Sacristy. 
Padua — S. Antonio, Chapel of the Saint. Miracle 
of St. Anthony. 

Allen Florence. 71-93- 

Allen Venice. 98-100. 

Bode Die Italientsche Plastik. 150-153; 162-17 1. 


Dohme Kunst und Kunstler Italiens. Andrea and 

Jacopo Sansovino. 

Forum 1900. v. 29. 44-53. 

Freeman .... Italian Sculpture. 137-144. 

Hare Cities of Northern Italy, v. II. 400-410. 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 341-349; 362-366. 

Mitchell .... Ancient Sculpture, v. II. 63S-642. 
Molinier .... Venise. 88-96. 

Miintz L' Age d' Or. 492-495. 

Miintz Le fin de la Renaissance. 411-413. 

Pater The Renaissance : essay on Winckelmann. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 237-245. 

Von Reber . . . Ancient Art. 402-403. 

Reymond ... La Sculpture Florentine. Le XVIe Siecle. 23- 

34; 103-1 1 1. 

Shedd Famous Sculptors. 119-122; 145-147. 

Schonfeld. . . . Andrea Sansovino und seine Schule. 

Scott Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern. 154-160, 

Sturgis European Architecture. 454-459. 

Symonds .... Fine Arts. 155, 156; 166-171. 
Symonds .... Revival of Learning. 429-440, 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. IV. 304-332. 

Young Story of Rome. 291-295. 

Yriarte Florence. 307-310. 


Outline for Study, 

Qualities relating Benedetto's work to that of Mino 
da Fiesole and Desiderio da Settignano. 

His architectural sculpture ; chimneypiece of 
Casa Rosselli. 

Tombs in the Carmine and Santi Apostoli, Flor- 
ence ; his peculiar motifs in decorative sculp- 
ture ; vogue of the new system of decoration in 
Northern Italy. 

Shrine of San Giovanni Gualberto. 

His call to England and the tomb of Cardinal 
Wolsey. Partial destruction of the last two 
important works. 


Topics for Further Research. 

Fall of the Medici (about 1494) and its effect 

upon art in Florence. 
Decline of bas-relief after the fifteenth century. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 2022s>- — San Giovazini Gualberto expelling a Demon from 

the body of the Monk Florenzio. 
One of a series of panels sculptured for the Shrine of the 
Saint. During the si^ge of Florence the parts of the shrine 
(including life-sized statues), which had not yet been set up in 
their intended place, were destroyed or mutilated by the 
French soldiery. This accounts for the headless figures in the 

What difficulties had the sculptor to contend with in 
illustrating this incident.^ Has he done this more im- 
pressively than if the demon were a tiny creature ? Cf . 
1301^, 1302^. Is it probable that he intended that we 
should consider it as a corporeal form ? Do the gestures 
of the bystanders indicate that they have seen so amaz- 
ing a sight as we see ? What is the inference ? 

Is the composition highly dramatic? Is it dis- 
tinguished by life and movement ? Is the action of the 
afflicted monk natural ? Are other figures successful ? 
Does the background add to the interest of the scene? 
Cf. 2246*, 2095*. Is the relief skilful in drawing? 
What beauties does it possess ? What resemblances to 
fifteenth-century sculptures ? 

No. 2024a — Chinmeypiece. 

Executed in marble for the palace of the Borgherini family 
and acquired by the National Museum in 1883. 

Is the general effect simple or rich ? Quiet or con- 
fused ? Are the parts of the design well balanced, well 
distributed ? Is there poverty of invention ? 

Are the incidents depicted in the frieze applicable to 
family history ? Is the conventionalized ornament sig- 


nificant ? Or the winged figures that surmount the 
mantel ? Or the central object between the genii ? 
Why is this an extraordinarily fine thing of its kind ? 

IL TRIBOLO (Niccolo di Braccini ; or Niccolo Periooli). 


Outline for Study, 

Tribolo's early training in wood-carving; prot^g^ 
of Jacopo Sansovino. 

His facility of invention ; taste in sculpture of a 
light character — figures for candlesticks, foun- 
tains, putti, etc. 

Tribolo's most characteristic works — side doors 
of San Petronio, Bologna. 

Work at Loreto in connection with Andrea 
Sansovino's unfinished reliefs. 

His patrons, the dukes of Florence ; superintend- 
ence of decorations for municipal festivals ; 
fountains for Villa Petraja and Villa Castello. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Florentine f^tes in early sixteenth century. (Taine.) 

Questions on a Selected Picture, 

No. 2050» — Assumption of the Virgin. 

Marble relief in a chapel of S. Petronio. The lower part by 
Tribolo ; angels at the sides by Properzia de' Rossi. 

What devices has the sculptor used to represent an 
intense illumination ? Is good taste violated ? How 
much of the effect is due to the lighting of the relief ? 
Would that be the case if the lighting were from full in 
front ? Would a quieter presentation be more satisfac- 
tory or is the imagination stimulated and uplifted by 
this ? Is this a legitimate subject for treatment in sculp- 
ture ? In painting. Why ? 

Consider the group of disciples ? Are they natural, 
sincere? Are they skilfully grouped? Modeled with 


understanding ? Is the small size of the sarcophagus 
justified ? 

Is the sentiment of the Madonna as religious as that of 
the disciples ? Has the study of form been a controlling 
motive anywhere in the composition ? Does this re- 
semble reliefs by Ghiberti ? 

Are the figures on either side conventional angels ? 
Are they athletes ? Are they done in the spirit of the 
early Renaissance ? How do they show classic influence ? 


Outline for Study, 

The San Gallo family of architects and sculptors* 

Francesco as a medalist. 

His effigy of Bishop Buonafede. 

Questions on a Selected Picture. 

No. 20€0a — Monument of Bishop Leonardo Buonafede. 

This beautiful effigy in marble lies on the pavement of the 
Chapter-house of the Certosa. It is said by some art historians 
to be a work of Giuliano San Gallo. 

Compare with the efiigy in 2005*; with 1126* (Ilaria 
del Caretto by Jacopo della Querela). Does San Gallo 
represent the old or the new Renaissance School ? Is 
there equal realism in all of these effigies ? Define the 
difference between them. What does it mean } 

What character do you read in the Bishop's portrait ? 
Is he idealized ? Does he seem sleeping or dead ? Is 
this the highest art ? What was the sculptor's feeling 
toward his subject ? Are the color effects justifiable ? 



2022a. . . Florence — Bargello : St. Giovanni Gualberto ex- 
pelling a demon. 
2024a . . . Florence — Bargello : Chimneypiece. 


io5oa . , . Bologna — S. Petronio. Assumption of the Virgin. 



2o6oa . . . Certosa di Val d' Ema (near Florence), Chapter- 
house. Monument of Bishop Leonardo Buonafede. 

Burckhardt . . . Renaissance in Italy. Part V., ch. VIII. 

(Italian Festivals.) 
Clausse .... Les San Gallo. 

Fabriczy .... Medallien der Italienische Renaissance. 71-77. 
Gazette des Beaux Art — 1883. v. 52. 105-122. 
Heiss Les Medailleurs de la Renaissance, v. i. 90- 


Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 337-339; 350. 

Miintz L *Age d'Or. 403-413. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 245-247; 335-337. 

Reymond ... La Sculpture Florentine. Le XVI« Si^cle. 

23; 42-46; 139; 141-146. 
Schonfeld . . . Andrea Sansovino und seine Schule. 
Scott Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern. 161,162; 

Taine . ..... Lectures on Art. v. II. 131-140; 149-151. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 95-119. v. 4. 1-29. 

A Group of Minor Sculptors outside of Tuscany. 


Outline for Study, 

The Lombardi family — architects and sculptors. 

Pietro's tomb of Dante, Ravenna — its simplicity. 

His position among artistic craftsmen in Venice; 
churches designed and decorated by him ; monu- 
ment of Cardinal Zeno in San Marco. 

His beautiful tombs at Treviso. 

Exuberance and excellence of his ornament. 

Tullio Lombardo — his style; his reputation. 

ANDREA BRIOSCO (Riccio). 1470-1522. 

A famous bronze-caster of Padua; his works 
there. Tendency to over- crowded design and 
obscure allegory. 



Torrigiano as soldier and as artist ; his character ; 
his artistic skill. Favor with which he was 
regarded in England ; important tombs in West- 
minster and elsewhere. 

Works in Spain ; his tragic end. 


An artist in clay ; importance of the Modena terra- 
cottas ; Begarelli's master. 

Correggio's influence and the unplastic character 
of Begarelli's work. 

His groups in Modena and Mantua. 

AGOSTINO BUSTI (Bambaja). 1480-1548. 
Bambaja*s numerous sculptures in Milan and its 

neighborhood ; remains of the monument of 

Gaston de Foix. 
His work characteristic of his time and locality ; 

its merits, its defects. 

PROPERZIA DF ROSSI. 1490 7-1530. 

A woman of talent and spirit ; pupil of Marc 
Antonio Raimondi and of II Tribolo. 

Her evolution — carver of minute objects ; dec- 
orative sculptor; sculptor of stories in relief 
and of statues. 
(For example of her work refer to Reproduction No. 2050*'* .) 


A pupil of Jacopo Sansovino ; logical develop- 
ment of Jacopo*s style into the '* baroque." 

Topics for Further Research, 

Gaston de Foix. 
The Cathedral of Milan. 
Influence of the Sforza and Visconti families. 
Evolution of the Renaissance tomb. (Perkins, 

Questions on Special Pictures. 


No. 2192a — Tomb of Cardinal Giambattista Zeno. 

A monument entirely of bronze. The attribution of its design 
to Pietro Lombardo does not pass unquestioned ; the statuettes 
are by Paolo Savin. The graceful relief is one of the most in- 
teresting examples of ornamental bronze work in Venice. 

Is there any poetry in this figure of the dead ? Is its 
realism offensive ? What difference in sentiment between 
this and 2172* ? Which work is richer in suggestion? 
How does Pietro's figure denote attention to decorative 
effect ? Was that his chief concern ? 

Is the whole design overloaded with ornament ? Is it 
broadly conceived ? Have the lines a long, easy swing ? 
Is the effigy belittled by the rich decoration of the 
sarcophagus ? Is the relief Renaissance or imitation of 
the classic ? Your reasons. 

Is there any clue as to what the statuettes represent? 
Are they distinctly not Christian ? Why ? Are they to 
be commended as studies of form ? 


No. 2030^ — The Lamentation. 

Is this more closely allied to the fifteenth or sixteenth 
century sculpture? Why? Has the artist treated his 
subject with genuine feeling? Does it move you to deep 
sympathy? Is the feeling restrained, refined ? Is any- 
thing desirable sacrificed for effect or for beauty? 

Would the same restraint be expected in clay as in 
marble ? What instances of freedom are noticeable in 
this work ? Does it suggest painting rather than sculp- 
ture? Are the draperies heavy? Was the artist master 
of expression, movement, anatomy? Is the composition 
of the group correct and graceful ? 


No. 2040» — Head of Gkiston de Foiz. 
(Detail of tomb.) 

What is a tomb effigy supposed to represent? Does 
this figure really represent a corpse ? Should it do so ? 
Why ? Does it suggest the rigidity of death ? its ghastli- 
ness ? its attendant suffering ? its sadness ? its mystery 
or apprehension ? its peace ? Would these other ideas 
have been equally suitable for expression in art ? Why ? 

What difficulties attend the representation of death in 
art ? Should the tomb effigy represent (a) the deceased 
as he actually appeared when living (see Gardner) ? 
{b) The corpse as it actually appears ? {c) Some sym- 
bolical allusion to death ? If the last, then what phase 
of death may best be chosen ? What other phases than 
this have been chosen ? With what result ? 

Does this suggest to you any principle regarding the 
place of realism and idealism in art ? 



2030a. . . Modena — S. Pietro. The Lamentation. 

2040a. . . Milan — Archaeological Museum. Head of Gaston 
de Foix : detail. 


2192a . . . Venice — S. Marco, Chapel of Cardinal Zeno. Tomb 
of Cardinal Zeno. 

Freeman .... Italian Sculpture. 191-197. 

Gardner .... Greek Sculpture. 393-397- (Greek tombs.) 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 354-359; 361, 362. 

Muntz L' Aged* Or. 528-531; 550-553- 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 203-211; 211-217; 226- 

228; 345-349; 354-359; 364, 365; 373-376; 

378, 379 ; 384-386. 


Shedd Famous Sculptors and Sculptures. 153, 154. 

Sturgis European Architecture. 319-322. 

Williamson . . . Cities of Northern Italy. 52-62 ; 68, 69, 
Yriarte Venise (French edition). 97-110; 113-122. 


** Flower-garden of the Lombardic Renaissance." 

Outline for Study. 

Mingling of Gothic and Renaissance architecture. 
Its founders — the Visconti and Sforza families. 
Architects, sculptors and painters who designed 
and worked there ; its minor sculptures. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 1621^ —Detail of Principal Portal. 

Ambrogio da Fossano (better known as Borgognone) is be- 
lieved to have designed much of this beautiful edifice and its 
sculptures. He was an important painter of the earlier Milanese 
school; for an example, refer to Reproduction No. 2026b . 

Are these scenes from sacred or secular history, or are 
they allegorical ? Are they arranged according to a 
systematic design ? Do they recall Andrea Pisano ? 
How do they resemble Ghiberti ? What particularly 
graceful and truthful studies from nature ? 

Is the spirit of the work in accord with 2026^? 

Compare with the later sculptures studied in this 
number. Are these equally intelligent decoration ? 

No. 1622a — Door of the Sacristy. 

The student is referred to the lesson on Omodeo in the Out- 
lines for May, first year's course ; and comparison should be 
made of his sculptures in the Certosa with his tombs in the 
CoUeoni Chapel. 

What elements in this scheme of decoration ? Was the 
sculptor a decorator par excellence! Cf. 2215*, 2192*, 
2090*. Is this design cold? Without grace? Is it 
harmonious throughout ? Was the sculptor at liberty to 
design the work from a purely artistic standpoint ? What 
is the meaning of all the elements of the design ? Do 


you recognize a familiar profile among the portrait busts 
on the frieze ? Cf . 3 1 8 1 ^ . 

Why is the general effect pleasing ? Does it resemble 
the Colleoni tombs ? 

No. 1625a —Panel in reUef, EUgh Altar. 

The medallion is attributed to Omodeo by Perkins ; by Bae- 
deker to Cristoforo Solari. 

What is the subject of the medallion ? Is it treated 
with appropriate feeling ? Is it at once realistic and 
decorative ? Do the main lines of the group harmonize 
with the enclosing circle ? 

Are the relative proportions of Jesus and the women 
natural ? Is that a rule often observed by the artists 
we have studied ? 

What engages the attention of the puttil Are all 
affected by the same feeling ? How do they resemble Do- 
natello's Dancing Cherubs ? Which work is the most 
direct, the most ndhe / How has this sculptor avoided 
an overcrowded effect ? Is his panel fuller, richer than 
Donatello's because of the depth of perspective ? Is it 
equally good decoration ? Why ? 

No. 1628^ — Tomb of Gian Galeazzo Visconti 

Design by Galeazzo Pellegrini ; executed by Omodeo and 

Have we here a new idea in funereal monuments \ 
Compare with other tombs studied in this and preceding 
Outlines. Is this characterized by any kind of extrava- 
gance or oddity ? Was the designer hampered by the 
simple quadrangular form ? Is the decoration appropri- 
ate, well balanced, significant? Are there any trivial 
accessories that detract from the dignity of the monu- 
ment } How much of the embellishment directly alludes 
to the worldly state of Visconti ? 

How would you characterize the sarcophagus and 


effigy ? Is the effigy idealized ? Has the group of 
Madonna and Child superior qualities ? 

Of the tombs and portals studied in this number which 
denote the most perfect artistic sense ? 

1621a. . . Pavia — Certosa. Detail of Principal Door. 

1622a . . . Pavia — Certosa. Door of the Sacristy. 

1625a. . . Pavia — Certosa: high altar. Pietk and children in 

1628a . . , Pavia — Certosa. Tomb of Gian Galeazzo Sforza. 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 354-359. 

Magazine of Art — v. 53. 312-316. 

Miintz L* Age d' Or. 546-548. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 176-178. 

Symonds .... Fine Arts. 161-165. 

Symonds .... Sketches and Studies, v. I. 146-152. 

Williamson . . Cities of Northern Italy. 120-124. 


Xc00on 3* 


Outline for Study. 

Leopard! eminent as a bronze caster ; discussion 
regarding the equestrian statue of Colleoni in 
Venice. (See also Outlines for May, first year's 

His talent for decorative design ; pedestal of the 
Colleoni group : bronze flag-staffs on Piazza 
San Marco, Venice. 

The part ascribed to him in the tomb of Doge 
Vendramin, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 2170a — Base of Flag-Btafi. 

Four flag-staffs sunk into bronze sockets, of which this is an 
example, stand in front of the great portals of San Marco. 

Is the general contour graceful ? The weight of 
ornament well distributed .'* Does the ornament weaken 
the structure at any point? (Consider its purpose.) 
Does it strengthen it ? 

Why is the winged lion so prominent ? Is it a religious 
symbol? Is it chosen for its beauty? Has the design 
on the lower section any relation to church or state ? 

Does the heavier ornament make the low relief look 
fiat or spiritless ? Are all parts of the design agreeably 
balanced so that each enhances the effect of the others ? 

No. 2172a — Detail of Tomb of Doge Andrea Vendramin. 

This has been considered one of the richest tombs of the 
Renaissance. The design is ascribed to Leopardi : in its execu- 
tion he was assisted by one of the sons of Pietro Lombardi — 
authorities differ as to whether Tullio or Antonio. 

Compare the effigy with 141 1*. Which is the most 
realistic? In which is the thought more spiritual? 


Would the character of the dead account for the differ- 
ence in their effigies ? Refer to others that have been 
studied. Is the Doge Vendramin treated sympatheti- 
cally? Is a decorative intent obvious in the general 
lines of the effigy and its support ? 

What innovations are here ? Is any artistic purpose 
served by the realism that you note ? What Pagan and 
what Christian elements are present ? Are grace and 
beauty sought ? Is this the design of a builder, a sculp- 
tor or a decorator ? Does it justify lavish praise ? Cf. 
2170*. Which is the most carefully considered, the 
most successful design ? If Leopardi was the designer 
of 2172*, what is his artistic rank ? 


Outline for Study. 

Cellini's twofold inheritance — the temperament 
of an artist, the temperament of a warrior. 

Cellini as a man ; a typical Italian of his time ; 
contradictory traits — lack of a sense of moral 
obligation in practically all the relations of life ; 
capable of open-hearted kindness, of religious 
ecstasy . A man who might have been one of 
the great Condottiere had not artistic impulse 
drawn him into other paths ; his career — a 
record of ill-regulated energy and violent deeds. 

His role in the siege of Rome. 

Cellini as an artist ; goldsmith, medalist, sculp- 
tor ; love of beauty and sumptuous ornament ; 
predilection for small and exquisite works ; not a 
nature student. 

Wanderings during his apprenticeship. 

Later life falls into three divisions : 

I . In Rome twenty-two years ; small works there on 
which his reputation is based; medallions — 
compare with those by fifteenth century artists. 


2. In France five years ; flattering reception ; num- 
erous works produced in his atelier and their 
vogue ; the Nymph of Fontainebieau ; French 
art-guilds and their attitude toward Cellini. 

3. In Florence twenty-seven years ; patronage of 
Duke Cosimo I. ; group of Perseus and Medusa ; 
busts of Cosimo and of Bindo Altoviti ; smaller 

The few works extant by Cellini. 

Cellini*s Autobiography — valuable as a record of 
Italian manners and morals in the Renaissance 
and for its racy Florentine vernacular. Treat- 
ises on goldsmithing and sculpture; sonnets 
and madrigals. 

Topics for Further Research, 

The growing tendency of artists to lead a peripa- 
tetic life ; its causes, its effects. 
Myths of Perseus and of Medusa. 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 2210^ — N3rmph of Fontainebieau. 

A symbolical design in bronze of colossal size intended for a 
lunette over the portal of the roj^al residence at the forest of 
Fontainebieau. » 

On what does the nymph recline ? What supports her 
arm ? What reasons occur to you for the introduction 
of the deer and other animals ? (Answer these ques- 
tions without referring to any writings on the subject ; 
study the design until you discover reasons satisfactory 
to yourself. ) 

Do the projecting horns of the deer improve the com- 
position ? Is the nymph graceful, flexible ? Compare 
proportions with 2006*. What is the difference ? Which 
more normal ? 

Has Cellini expressed his thought clearly ? Is there 


any objection to the mixture of realistic and conven- 
tional elements in the design ? 

No. 2212^ — PerseuB with the Head of Medusa. 

No. 2215a — Danae and the Child Peraeus. 

(Detail of pedestal of Perseus and Medusa.) 

Work in bronze, commissioned by Duke Cosimo I. One or 
two small models in wax for the figure of Perseus are in exist- 
ence. There is a noticeable difference in grace and lightness 
between model and finished statue, in favor of the model. The 
richly ornamented plinth that sustains the group is considered 
by some critics to be too slender ; but the body of Medusa and 
her draperies break its outlines ; the predominence of long, 
upright lines gives dignity to the composition, while the effect 
of the whole is elegant. 

Is Perseus a well-proportioned figure ? Is it graceful ? 
Cf. 2235*. Youthful? Cf. 1541*, 1236*. Does it 
seem alive, athletic ? 

Would Donatello have treated the subject thus ? Would 
a correct artistic instinct have dealt with this moment of 
the tragedy ? Why ? 

Does the myth of Medusa suggest a repulsive being ? 
When did sculptors begin to represent her beautiful and 
tenderly feminine ? What change does that indicate in 
the interpretation of the myth ? 

Is the ornamental detail appropriate to the theme which 
is illustrated by the statues ? (The decorative elements are 
mixed Roman and Oriental. ) Do you feel the form of 
the pedestal ? Is it completely transformed into a grace- 
ful object ? Is it enlarged at the right point ? Is the 
ornament too heavy ? Does the figure of Danae lose in 
value thereby ? 

No. 2220^ — Bust of Cosimo I. 

(Bronze, over life size.) 

This Cosimo, the first bearing the title Grand Duke of Tus- 
cany, belonged to the later Medici dynasty, and was descended 
from a brother of the illustrious Cosimo de' Medici, Pater Patrice, 


What traits of character are here suggested ? Is the 
face idealized? (Compare with medallion portrait of 
Cosimo, Fabriczy, p. 88.) Are these realistic details unnec- 
essary to the development of a portrait in the best 
sense ? Is there any meaningless modeling ? Is the 
work sketchy ? Is it to be expected that a bronze shall 
be as perfectly modeled as sculpture in marble ? Is this 
a good lesson in treatment of bronze ? 

Examine all parts of the work : what part is most inter- 
esting, more free in handling ? What allusions to mythol- 
ogy and what allegorical allusions ? Was this costume 
actually worn by Cosimo ? 

No. 2280a — Pitcher. 

This piece of gilded silver is an example ot" the numerous 
vases, pitchers and plates produced in precious metals ostensibly 
for table use, but probably considered precious by their possess- 
ors because of the talent, inventiveness, and exquisite crafts- 
manship that they represent. -In cultivated circles a keen appre- 
ciation existed for these artistic trifles, and the ingenious and 
tasteful worker in metals and ceramics was accorded liberal and 
intelligent patronage. 

Is this a practical shape ? Is' it artistically satisfac- 
tory — graceful, balanced? Is a general effect of rich- 
ness sufficient in such an article ? May the decorator's 
fancy run riot or will a trained taste demand that the or- 
nament shall conform to strict conventions and refuse 
to condone anachronisms ? What would naturally be the 
character of Cellini's influence on his followers ? Is the 
ornamental design confused or awkward ? Can you sug- 
gest any change for the better ? 


The last great sculptor of the Florentine School. 
Outline for Study, 

Giovanni's northern origin and education ; domi- 
nation of Italian ideals in Flemish art of the 
sixteenth century. 


Giovanni in Rome; friendship with Michael 
Angelo ; character of the latter's work at that 

Giovanni's predilection for works of large size 
not inconsistent with elegance and refinement ; 
style more simple than that of the Florentines 
and of followers of Michael Angelo. 

His removal to Florence ; the Medici still patrons 
of art ; their enthusiasm for Giovanni's work ; 
the Flying Mercury — an epitome of sixteenth 
century ideals and skill ; groups in Loggia dei 
Lanzi — Rape of Sabine and Hercules with 
Centaur: mediocre character of his equestrian 
portrait groups. 

Demand for the colossal in art ; sixteenth century 
interest in contrasts of age and sex, human and 
animal forms. 

Giovanni's sculptures sought by all Italian cities ; 
Neptune fountain at Bologna an example of all 
the characteristics of his genius ; Crucifixes in 
Tuscany of great beauty and religious feeling ; 
many small bronzes and their extraordinary 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Romanists in Flemish art. 
The Labors of Hercules. (Handbook of mythol- 
Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 2235^ — Mercury. 

Figure in bronze, under life size, designed for a fountain of 
the Villa Medici in Rome, where it remained until 1750 when it 
was removed to Florence. 

, On what does the figure rest ? What impression does 
this give to the whole ? Is there a sense of poise, of 
lightness, of motion, of instability ? Is the attitude easy 


and restful or is it • trying to look at ? Why ? How is 
the eflFect secured ? 

Are the lines gracieful ? Do the curves lead the eye 
away from the figure or toward it? Is there any excep- 
tion ? Explain its eflFect. 

Is the play of muscles elaborately worked out ? Cf. 
22 12*, 2215*. Has Giovanni found it possible to express 
more detailed and precise modeling in bronze than 
Cellini? Cf. also 2220*. 

Is the intellectual element prominent in this work ? 
Is it demanded ? Is it an appropriate fountain figure? 

No. 2240^ — Rape of a Sabine. 

Marble group completed in 1583. The name was chosen by 
the counsel of friends after its completion. Observe that it is 
a study of youth, maturity and old age. 

Why has the sculptor introduced the figure of the old 
man below ? What is suggested by his position ? Is 
the group well balanced ? How does its height compare 
with its breadth of base ? Is this noticeable in other 
sculptures we have studied? Cf. Reproductions for 
December and May, first year's course. 

Is the individuality of the different figures marked as 
to age, sex, etc.? Do the attitudes and gestures tell the 
story ? Is the work full of intellectual vigor and emo- 
tion ? Has it beauty of face and form ? Is it probable 
that this was a mere abstract study of form and that a 
story of victims and capture by force was not in the 
artist's mind ? 

No. 2245^ —Bronze Doors. 

No. 2246^ —Presentation of Jesus. 

(Detail of 2245a .) 

These doors, replacing those destroyed by fire in 1595, have 
long been considered the design of Giovanni. Some eminent 
critics now question this attribution. They are, however, 
characteristic of the work of his school. 

Compare with the doors by Andrea Pisano, 1030* and 


1031*; by Ghiberti, 1158*, 1182*; by Jacopo Sansovino, 
2090*. What different arrangement of parts? Is the 
decoration more or less elaborate ? Has it a structural 
origin like that of the lions' heads ? Is the general effect 
more or less rich ? Are the design and proportions as 
fortunate as in the earlier doors ? 

What salient points in the doors of Ghiberti and San- 
sovino are wanting in Giovanni's ? Is his work monot- 
onous ? 

Are the panels more or less pictorial than Ghiberti's ? 
As carefully finished ? (This question refers to design ; 
the marred surface is an accident probably due to expo- 
sure to weather or to poor casting.) Is feeling for the 
story, for beauty of individual figures, for effective group- 
ing greater than in the earlier doors ? 

No. 2249a — Bathers. 

These bronze statuettes are characteristic house ornaments 
of the period. 

Is the beauty of the female form well represented ? 
Are the attitudes such as to emphasize that ? Is this 
more intelligent work than 2210*? Is the anatomy 
worked out with more care than 2215*? Is the differ- 
ence that between the sculptor and the goldsmith ? Is 
there any lack of fineness in thought or execution ? 

No. 2250a — Hercules and Centaur. 

Colossal group in marble, completed in 1599. The subject 
chosen from classic mythology and demanding violent action 
and strong contrasts suited admirably the spirit of the times. 

Is the group well supported and balanced ? Do the 
combatants make a conscious appeal to the spectator or 
are they absorbed in their struggle ? Is the contest real 
or simulated ? What elements contribute to this effect ? 

Does the animal or the human predominate in the cen- 
taur ? Is the contrast marked ? Study both face and 


Is Hercules merely the embodiment of brute force ? 
Is there uncertainty as to his victory? What is the dom- 
inant feature of the group ? Does this relieve its vio- 

Compare the outstretched hands in Giovanni's works. 
Are they equally expressive ? What effect have they ? 
Is it a mannerism ? A defect ? 


2170a. . . Venice — Piazza San Marco. Base of flag-staff. 
2172a . . . Venice — SS. Giovanni e Paolo: Detail of Tomb of 
Doge Andrea Vendramin. 


22ioa . . . Paris — Louvre. Nymph of Fontainebleau. 

2212a. . . Florence — Loggia dei Lanzi. Perseus with the 
head of Medusa. 

2215a. . . Danae with the child Perseus: detail of 

pedestal of Perseus and Medusa. 

2220a. . . Florence — Bargello. Bust of Cosimo I. 

2280a . . . Florence — Pitti. Silver Pitcher : (School of Cel- 


2235a. . . Florence — Bargello. Mercury. 

Florence — Loggia dei Lanzi. Rape of the Sabines. 
Pisa — Cathedral. Bronze doors. 

Presentation of Jesus : detail of 2245a . 
Florence — Bargello. Bathers. 
Florence — Loggia dei Lanzi. Hercules and Centaur. 


Bode Die Italienische Plastik. 174-177. 

Cellini Treatises on goldsmithing and sculpture. 

Destr^e Renaissance of Sculpture in Belgium. 8-19. 

Dimier Benvenuto Cellini k la cour de France. 

Fortnightly Review — 1887. v. 47. 73. 

Freeman .... Italian Sculpture. 147-156 ; 159-163. 

Goethe Sammtliche Werke. v. XII. 

Grimm Michael Angelo. v. II. 438, 439. 


Harper's Magazine — 1890. v. 80. 363-376. 

Heiss Les Medailleurs de la Renaissance, v. I. 102- 

Litteirs Living Age — 1887*. v. 172. 345-354. 
Longueville . . Chisel, pen and poignard ; or Benvenuto 


Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 351-353; 390-392. 

Macdonell . . . Life of Benvenuto Cellini. 

Magazine of Art — v. 5. 200-206; v. 6. 281-286. 

Molinier .... Benvenuto Cellini. 

Molinier .... Venise, ses arts decoratifs. 76-80. 

MUntz .... L*Aged'Or. 417-430; 531-534. 

Miintz . . . . Le fin de la Renaissance. 424-430. 

Nineteenth Century — 1892. v. 31. 938-949. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 134, 135 (note); 324-335; 

337-340; 359-360. 
Plon Benvenuto Cellini. 

Reymond ... La Sculpture Florentine. Le XVI« Si^cle. 

Scott Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern. 78-89; 

Scribner's Magazine — 1889. v. 6. 493-501. 
Shedd Famous Sculptors and Sculptures. 155-157; 

Symonds .... Age of Despots. 481-486. 
Symonds .... Fine Arts. 437-480. 
Syinonds .... Life of Benvenuto Cellini. 
Taine Lectures on Art. v. II. Philosophy of Art in 

Italy. 104-130; Philosophy of Art in the 

Netherlands. Part 2. § II. 
Wauters .... Flemish School of Painting. (Romanists in 

Flemish Art.) 
Yriarte Venise. ' 103; 132-136. 


Xc00on 4» 


Outline for Study, 


The influence of Rome upon art development ; 
religious and political conditions of the period. 

Ideals of the seventeenth century : new and strik- 
ing effects, powerful emotions, technical skill ; 
the consequent lack of sincerity in its art; 
great productiveness. 

Early promise of Bernini's work ; his cleverness 
and facility. The Apollo and Daphne. 

Statues of saints and martyrs in S. Peter's and 
S. John Lateran ; their colossal size and theatri- 
cal character. 

Tombs of the Popes in S. M. Maggiore and S. 
Peter's; rich in material, empty and preten- 
tious in sentiment. 

Bernini as architect ; the colonnade of S. Peter's ; 
fountains designed by him; his influence on 
French and Engfish architecture. 

The vogue enjoyed by Bernini and his financial 

STEFANO MADERNA. 1571-1636. 

The story of S. Cecilia and her tomb ; the sim- 
plicity of this example of Maderna's art : the 
dependence of Rome upon artists from abroad. 

Topics for Further Study, 

Moulding of late Renaissance ideals on Greek 

The Baroque in architecture. (Hamlin.) 
The Counter-Reformation and its effect on art. 
The story of St. Longinus. (Jameson.) 


Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 2260a — St. LonginuB. 

Are you able to judge of the history and character of 
St. Longinus by the accessories of this statue ? What 
character does Bernini give him by face, gesture and 
pose ? Are his strength, his goodness, his contrition 
made impressive ? Does the Saint wish them to be so, 
or is he unconscious of his virtues ? How essential is 
unconsciousness in art ? 

What impression does this give of the religion of the 
period.^ Is this just? 

Cf. 1112^, 1 189*, 1230*, 1265*. Are the draperies 
classic, mediaeval, or modern ? Are they realistic ? Are 
they beautiful ? What effect do they add to the statue. 

No. 2265 a— David. 

Is this a realistic representation of David in form, 
dress, attitude, expression ? Study the chest, knees, 
hands and feet. Is there here any undue display of 
technical skill — /. <f., does it divert attention from the 
central thought ? Have we studied any better example 
of the nude ? 

What is indicated by the expression of face ? Is it a 
careful character study ? Does it give a sense of reserve 
power, of self control, of certain victory ? Is the same 
true of the figure? Is the attitude natural? Is it one 
easy to maintain ? Should this be considered by a 
sculptor ? Why ? 

Does the exercise of force in a work of art increase our 
mpression of its strength ? 

Does this give you a new and more adequate interpre- 
tation of David's character and story ? 

No. 2268a — Portrait of Francesco I. d' Eate. 

Compare with early portrait busts: 1375*, 1421*, 
1426*, 1452*. What differences are due to the artists* 
treatment? What to differences in the character and 


appearance of the subject ? What to the 'different pe- 
riod, the difference of manners and customs ? 

Are the features more carefully, more delicately mod- 
eled ? Is the hair more realistic ? More beautiful ? 

Explain the costume. Was this drapery worn by the 
prince ? Was it adopted for artistic reasons ? Is it an 
artistic mannerism ? 

Is this a straightforward portrait of a plain, straight- 
forward man ? ' How accurately does it portray seven- 
teenth century life as seen in history ? Have you seen 
French portraits that resemble this ? 

No. 2270a — St. CeciUa. 

Compare these garments with Bernini's draperies. 
Which are more natural ? More beautiful ? More ar- 
tistic ? In how far are these synonomous ? 

What suggested the attitude of the figure ? Is this a 
new idea? Is it for that reason displeasing? Is the 
attitude constrained or easy ? graceful ? distressing ? 
Is the fact of a martyr's death concealed ? Is it made 
unduly prominent ? 

In how far does this conform to the ideals of the 
seventeenth century ? Is it for that reason open to crit- 
icism? In how far does it conform to the highest ar- 
tistic ideals ? In what does it fall short ? 

General Questions on the Period of Classic Influence and 

the 'Decadence, 

What classic elements did Renaissance sculptors bor- 
row ? To what extent did they imitate classic art and to 
what extent modify its principles to a Christian civiliza- 
tion ? 

What effect had classic influence on the spontaneity, 
the narvet6, the realism of early Renaissance sculpture ? 
Did sixteenth century sculpture gain by the new ele- 
ments ? 

What difference between the classic revival in the 


time of Niccol6 Pisano and the later revival at the end 
of the fifteenth century ? What reasons for the speedy 
dying out of the first ? How much did sculpture in the 
palmy days of the fifteenth century ( the day of Dona- 
tello and the greater Tuscan relief sculptors ) owe to 
classic learning ? 

What causes operated toward the extinction of origi- 
nality in plastic art ? What had social conditions to do 
with it ? Or religious conditions ? How much was due 
to the decay of Florence as an art centre ? 

What was the general trend of the art of northern 
Italy outside of Florence and Venice ? How does this 
provincial art (beginning with Jacopo della Querela) 
compare with the more centralized schools in originality, 
in technical quality, in artistic taste ? To what extent 
did it throw off Gothic influence ? 

What do you understand by the opposition of Gothic 
and classic influence ? Of Christian and Pagan ? Of 
living, growing art and decadence ? How is Bernini an 
illustration of the last ? Was he without talent, power, 
originality, taste ? Where did he fall short of true great- 
ness in art ? 

Did sculpture keep pace with the other arts in growth 
and change of sentiment ? In productiveness ? 



2260a. . . Rome — S.Peter's. St. Longinus. 

2265a. . . Rome — Borghese. David. 

2268a . . . Modena — Estense Gallery. Bust of Francesco I. 
d' Este. 


2270a . . . Rome — S. Cecilia in Trastevere. St. Cecilia. 

Very little is written in English concerning Bernini and his 
times in the form of biography or essay, although allusions to 
him are frequently met in reading on art subjects. 

The Encyclopedias and Spooner's Art Dictionary have long 


articles on him. In German is the long chapter in the Dohme 
Series ; in Italian, the sixth volume of Cicognara's Storia del 
Arti is devoted to Bernini and the artists of his time in Italy and 
elsewhere ; and a French author has written a small volume on 
Le Cavalier Bernin en France. 

So with the Baroque in architecture and ornament, answering 
to the bombastic style of seventeenth century sculpture. While 
it extends over a period of about two centuries it is not made the 
subject of a book or essay. A period of over-ripe maturity or 
decadence while exceedingly interesting in a certain way to 
the student, offers to the essayist only exhausted material. 

Bode Die Italienische Plastik. 1 79-181. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. (Lorenzo 

Fergusson . . . Modern Architecture. Book I. Ch I. p. 65. 

Hamlin History of Architecture. 302-304. 

Jameson .... Sacred and Legendary Art. 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 388-390; 414- 

Mathews .... Story of Architecture. 389-391. (Baroque.) 

Scott Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern. 132-133. 

Shedd Famous Sculpture and Sculptors. 173-176. 

Spooner .... Biographical History of the Fine Arts. 
Sturgis European Architecture. 543-544. 


Xa0t ipcar'0 ©utlinee anb l^cprobuctione- 

cover a field which no student of art can afford to neg- 
lect. The art of the High Renaissance is the great 
art of the modern period, but it is neither the most inter- 
esting to study nor the most instructive. Interest to 
the student centers in the period of development which 
preceded it, a period on which sincerity and inspiration 
struggled with imperfect expression. This period has 
never been adequately represented in any former series. 
Especially noteworthy are : — 

1. The mosaics, the supreme art achievement of the 
middle ages and the best illustration of the principles 
of decorative art, the art which the Renaissance aban- 
doned and to which our own day is returning. 

2. The Giotto century including the predecessors, the 
contemporaries and the devoted followers of this single 
rival of Michelangelo for supremacy in Italian art. 

3. The minor artists of the fifteenth century, these 
great builders of an art which was later to crowd them 
so ungratefully into oblivion. 

Don't study art by picking out the pretty things you 
like. Never mind your likings ; try to understand. Then 
only will your likings minister equally to your pleasure 
and to your growth. Study the older art. For information 
regarding last year's publications see page 48. 


H Sample Xccturc (tourec- 

The following course of lectures by Professor Powers 
during the winter of 1903-4 is a sample of the rapidly 
developing work in this department. Given in a city 
believed to be little interested in art and where no one 
dared assume financial responsibility for it, its suc- 
cess, pecuniary and otherwise, has been unprecedented. 

Wednesday, October 7 — Roman and Mediaeval 
Florence : The War of the Factions, Guelf and Ghibel- 
line. The Revival of Art : Niccola Pisano and Cima- 
bue. Imitation and Assimilation of Ancient Art. 

Friday, October 16 — Democratic Florence : The 
Rule of the Guilds. Giotto, the Commoner in Art, his 
relation to Mediaevalism, his relation to the Renaissance. 
A Century of the Giotto Tradition. 

Friday, October 23 — Plutocratic Florence : The 
Rise of the New Aristocracy and Struggle for Supre- 
macy. Prospect and Retrospect in Art. Masaccio and 
Fra Angelico. 

Friday, October 30 — Medicean Supremacy : Cos- 
imo, Pater Patriae. Medicean Patronage of Art : Ghi- 
berti and Donatello. 

Friday, November 6 — Neo-Paganism and Christian- 
ity. The Humanists and their Influence on Art. 
Fra Lippo Lippi, Filippino Lippi, Ghirlandajo, Botti- 
celli^s early Work. 

Friday, November 13 — Lorenzo and Savonarola : 
The Eternal Conflict and its Outcome. Savonarola's 
Influence upon Art. Botticelli, Fra Bartolommeo, Michel- 
angelo's Youth. 

Friday, November 20 — Florence and Milan. The 
Court of Ludovico. Leonardo : Artist, Scientist, Me- 
chanician and Man of the World. 



Friday, December 4 — Florence and her Lesser 
Neighbors : Her Debt to their Influence. Siena, the 
early Rival : Bologna and San Petronio ; Art in Umbria. 

Friday, December i i — Florence and Umbria : 
Their Culture Alliance. Perugino and Raphael : Their 
Gift and their debt to Florence. » 

Friday, December 18 — After Savonarola; Condi- 
tions in Florence and Rome. Michelangelo's early 

Friday, January 8 — The Zenith of the Papacy : 
Rome under Julius II. and Leo X. The Sistine Ceiling. 

Friday, January 15 — The Passing of Florence: 
The Restoration of the Little Medici. Michelangelo's 
Last Works: The Last Judgment, the Tombs of the 
Medici, the Descent from the Cross. The Closing of 
the Book. 






Issued in Monthly Parts from October until May 


The first year includes the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries, the second year, beginning with Leonardo da Vinci, 
includes the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 


We publish half-tone reproductions of the subjects studied 
in the Outlines, many of which are not obtainable elsewhere. 
These or their equivalent are indispensable. They are prepared 
from our own carefully selected photographs and constitute the 
only series adapted to the serious study of art. 

Price, I cent each. In sets to match the Outlines, 80 cents per 
100. Complete set for the first year, 385, price, $3.00; second 
year, 450, price $3.50. Postage charged on orders of less than 10 


We furnish the books mentioned in our bibliography or 
others, carriage free, at prices varying from list to 20 per cent 


Lectures on art and kindred topics by the President of the 
Bureau, and others of the force, are in increasing demand. A 
sample lecture or lesson aids greatly in the establishment of our 
method of study and is invariably followed by enthusiastic in- 
terest in the development of our work. Early engagements are 


Courses in art study given in Boston during the Winter include 
training for individual research. Such courses will soon be or- 
ganized in other cities. A limited number of clubs for art study 
are conducted under our own auspices and aid is furnished in 
the formation of others. 


These are organized in both America and Europe, under ex- 
perienced leaders, during the Holiday, Easter and Summer 

201 Clarendon Street, Boston, Mass. 


Number Eleven. 

Zbc Conventions of Sculpture. 


To the novice the task of the sculptor, no matter how 
difficult in point of skill, seems simple and plain in prin- 
ciple. He has merely to copy nature in stone. That 
such copying has its limits is easily conceded ; also that 
within the limits of the feasible some things are more wor- 
thy than others. But the selection once made, the path 
of the sculptor seems to lie straight before him. The 
form of the thing chosen is to be reproduced as exactly 
as the skill of the sculptor will permit. This naive con- 
ception of plastic art is responsible for much misdirected 
criticism as well as for not a little misdirected praise. 

We may ignore for the present the larger problems of 
subject, of ideal and real. The reproduction of nature 
certainly has a place, and a very important place, in plas- 
tic art. It would indeed be a pity if fancy and creative 
imagination had no place in the artist's program, but he 
can give them little rein until the art of imitating nature 
is thoroughly mastered. For us, as for the artist, this 
problem may well engage exclusive attention for a time. 

It may be well to recall at the outset that, in so far as 
he imitates nature, the artist is making, not realities, but 
appearances. He may make, to be sure, a statue which 
is to do duty as a pillar or a lamp post, in which case 
utility and other complicating circumstances enter. But 
sculpture, merely as sculpture, has no other purpose than 
to convey certain impressions, to represent something 
which it is not. Its purpose is to se^m rather than to de. 
Hence it is not important that sculpture should be natu- 
ral; it should merely seem so. This may seem a quibble, 
but as a matter of fact we shall see that the two are by 
no means synonymous. Whenever they are in conflict 
the choice of the artist is clear. He must make things 

seem natural rather than be natural, for seemings are what 
his whole work is for. 

We have but to reflect a moment to perceive that the 
artist imitates nature with very limited means. Thus the 
painter suggests space by representing high lights and 
shadows, but his space remains, after all, a flat surface 
with its own sheen or high lights. We may educate our- 
selves to forget the latter and may get something of a 
forced illusion from the picture, but an animal never does 
so. Again, he wishes to represent the bright sunlight 
which blinds our gaze, but he has nothing more dazzling 
than white paint with which to produce this illusion. The 
sculptor, on the other hand, though able to give us real 
form, cannot give us the other characteristics of nature. 
No matter how lifelike his statues may be, they are never 
difficult to distinguish from real people. This is at the 
bottom of all the artist's difficulties, and is in turn the 
source of all his devices and conventions. He has to make 
bricks without straw. He has to do the work of nature 
with but a fraction of nature's resources. The result is 
inevitable. He makes such resources as he has at his 
disposal do double duty. He tries by endless devices to 
emphasize the suggestions of naturalness which he is able 
to give, and make us forget the unnaturalness which he 
cannot eliminate. 

The great resource of sculpture is form. The sculptor 
can make practically any form or shape he wishes. To 
be sure, this resource has its limits. He can reproduce 
the delicate forms of hair, leaves, etc., only very im- 
perfectly. Moreover, among the changing forms or 
attitudes which living beings present, he is compelled 
to choose with the greatest circumspection. But skill 
will overcome in large part these limitations. In the 
subtle imitation of form the artist flnds means to suggest, 
if not fully to express, almost any thought of nature which 
he wishes to convey. 

Color suggests itself as another means of which the 
sculptor may avail himself. All are familiar with the 
fact that the Greeks colored their statues, following in 
that the example of many earlier peoples. But it must 
not be supposed for a moment that their statues were 
colored with a view to making them look lifelike, like 
Mrs. Jarley's wax works. In the earlier day faces were 
painted red, hair and beard blue or green, eyes green, 
etc. Later these crude pigments were toned down to 
mere tints, and the nude was left altogether uncolored — 
an improvement, no doubt, but no more natural than be- 
fore. Modern sculpture has dropped color altogether, 
and we have a significant aversion to its revival. The 
experience of the world seems to be that color cannot 
be used to advantage in sculpture, at least as regards the 
imitation ^ of nature. Greek color is to be explained in 
part as the survival of an earlier scheme of architectural 
decoration — in part, as a means for producing certain 
artistic effects, but never as a device for imitating nature. 
From this use of color the sculptor seems barred. 

Other means of nature are wholly denied the sculptor. 
Motion, the most universal characteristic of life, is impos- 
sible. Even the painter's privilege of suggesting motion 
by transition attitudes is one of which the sculptor can 
make but sparing use. Texture, the feel of things under 
touch or pressure, is again hopelessly beyond his reach. 

Looking at the same subject from the other side, we 
find certain positive characteristics in the materials in 
which the sculptor works which challenge attention. His 
statues are commonly of metal or stone, materials which 
are exceedingly heavy and hard, as we know by a thou- 
sand experiences. Stone, moreover, is brittle, while 
metal is tough and more or less ductile, both being un- 
like the things whose forms he imitates. 

Here at the outset, therefore, we find the imitation of 
nature limited by a stupendous unnaturalness. If the 


artist wishes to suggest nature to us he must first of all 
make us forget this unnaturalness. This gives rise to a 
group of devices whose aim is to overcome or lessen the 
sense of unnaturalness in the material of which these art 
forms are made. These are known as conventions of 
the material. 

If you wish to make men forget that a thing is stone, 
never try to conceal the fact. To deceive people perma- 
nently is impossible. To deceive them for a moment 
only calls their attention so much the more sharply to the 
fact you have tried to conceal. When we start, with sur- 
prise, to find that a supposed man is only a wax figure, 
we think of nothing but the strangeness that wax can 
look so lifelike. There is no room for ideas about beauty 
or meaning. Now these are the very ideas that concern 
art, and a real artist will never scare them out of our 
heads by startling us with a moment's paltry illusion. 
He confesses at the outset that his statue is stone, in the 
hope that you will give the matter of the material no fur- 
ther thought, and devote your attention entirely to the 
thought he is trying to express. This is the reason why 
lifelike color is rejected in sculpture. It is just a bit 
too lifelike. If it could bring the other life character- 
istics along with it, all i right ; but since it cannot, it in- 
curs the danger of startling us with a moment's half illu- 
sion, and so reminding us of what the artist wishes us 
most of all to forget, namely, that this is stone. 

The same reason that prohibits realistic color prohibits 
realistic forms in cases which seem to do violence to the 
nature of stone. Thus, it will not do to imitate too 
closely loose and fluffy locks of hair, delicate leaves, etc. 
Extreme cleverness in cutting these forms at first seems 
a gain, as being a closer imitation of nature, but we soon 
perceive that the idea thus suggested is not nature, but 
stone. Instead of thinking of the beauty of the hair or 
the leaf, we think of the wonderful stone-cutting, and 


marvel that so brittle a material can be made to take such 
delicate forms. Here, again, the artist has missed his 
aim. He has made us think of the. difficulties presented 
by the material and of his cleverness in overcoming them, 
instead of making us think merely of the natural objects 
which he is trying to suggest. Hence it is a maxim of 
art that sculptured forms must be lithic or stone forms 
rather than strictly natural forms. Strange as it may 
seem, the best way to make us forget the material is to 
make large concessions to it. If stone is used to suggest 
other things, it must be used in strict conformity to its 
own~ nature, else it startles us and ultimately displeases 
us by a sense of incongruity. When we first behold the 
incredible intricacy of a late Gothic screen or a ceiling 
like that of Henry the Seventh's chapel in Westminster » 
we say: " How wonderful ! " and go away, thinking we 
have praised it. Only later do we discover that we have 
unconsciously uttered a merited criticism. We are amazed 
that stone can be made to assume forms so uncongenial 
to its nature. If the artist wishes to leave us free to en" 
joy his thought of beauty, he should carefully choose to 
execute in stone only those forms which are consonant 
with its nature. How widely these forms will differ from 
those of the thing imitated, the varying nature of the 
material will determine. Stone will dictate forms of one 
kind, bronze of another, pottery of another, and so on. 
All these forms will be made unnatural in order that they 
may seem natural. 

This same stoniness of sculpture imposes limitations 
in the way of attitude, grouping, etc., quite as imperative 
as those we have considered. Stone is heavy and brittle, 
and hence durable structures in stone must be solid and 
broad of base. Statues and groups of statuary are no 
exception. The experience of centuries of art experi- 
ment is, therefore, that sculpture, to be satisfactory, 
must be arranged in compact groups and in something 

of a pyramidal form. This is not always what nature 
would suggest, but an imperfect suggestion of nature 
left undisturbed is more satisfactory than a vivid sugges- 
tion neutralized by an alien impression. A stable pose 
or group, is, therefore, to be secured at any cost. One 
of the surest signs of decadence is the adoption of sensa- 
tional and startling attitudes which sin against the 
eternal repose of stone. 

An instance of the concession required to secure such 
a group is to be found in Michael Angelo's Pieta. The 
Madonna holds the dead Christ in her lap with such a 
disposition of head and limbs as to form an admirably 
compact group of this all but impossible composition. 
But to secure this result the artist has been compelled 
not only to clothe the Madonna in voluminous drapery, 
but to represent her as considerably larger than the 
Christ. Such modifications of nature are easily criti- 
cised, but in a really successful work like this they are 
unnoticed, save by the hypercritical. That is their suffi- 
cient justification. Art is a study in impressions, a 
science of seemings. More truth to nature in this case 
would have given us stones to think about, not persons, 
and so would have wholly defeated the artistes purpose. 

This same principle forbids the representation of some 
things altogether in sculpture. Thus, the flames which 
are so conspicuous in the Flemish representations of Hell, 
the clouds in which the decadent sculptors of the eight- 
eenth century delighted, these and similar phenomena 
are hopelessly incapable of representation in a substance 
so alien to their own nature. 

Strangely enough the same difficulty sometimes requires 
an opposite treatment. Hair, foliage, etc., must not be 
represented in too much detail. They are best when 
merely suggested or hinted at. But there are other cases 
where even the fullest expression of form seems inade- 
quate, and the sculptor finds himself impelled to exag- 


gerate. Take the case of a curtain drawn straight and 
smooth. We have no trouble in recognizing it and appre- 
ciating its essential character. But let the sculptor 
reproduce it in stone, and we scarcely distinguish it 
from a stone wall. The reason is that a curtain hanging 
smooth has no very distinctive shape. It is much the 
shape of a stone wall, and so when made in stone it 
is at once mistaken for a wall. As a curtain it had color 
and texture, two qualities which enabled us to distin- 
guish it with ease, but in the copy these disappear and 
we suddenly discover our dependence upon them. But 
copied in stone it looks like stone and not like curtain. 

Something of this same difficulty is encountered when- 
ever we deal with fabrics in art. Curtains are not very 
frequent subjects in art, but draperies on the human 
figure are one of the constant elements in sculpture. 
Draperies hang from the human figure, after all, a good 
deal like curtains. Natural folds, even of the softest 
materials, are usually broad and simple folds whose form 
tells us very little. Our consciousness of the character 
of the material is due not to their shape but to their 
texture as suggested by color, sheen, etc. When these 
are lost, as they must be in the marble copy, the drapery, 
if true in form, refuses to look like soft and yielding 
fabric; it looks like stone. 

What can be done to remedy this defect in the texture 
of our drapery ? To reproduce the color and sheen of 
the original is impossible. We have nothing but form, 
and this is insufficient. The answer is simply, make form 
do double duty. After all, form does tell us some- 
thing about texture. The smoothest curtain has some 
bends or undulations that suggest the yielding nature of 
cloth, and if we finally detect the real intent of the marble 
copy it will be by taking account of these folds or undu- 
lations. The more there are of them the easier we make 
it out. The lesson is plain. If the sculptured drapery 


doesn't seem so clothy as it should, put in more folds. 
Suppose that in nature folds are responsible for a quarter 
of our sense of texture, the rest being due to color, light, 
touch, etc. Now, since we have but one-quarter of the 
impression of nature, let us put in four times as many 
folds as nature does. 

This is about what the skilful sculptor does. The 
early, natve sculptors make the mistake of making the 
fold forms perfectly natural, and their drapery always 
looks like stone, or at the best like gingerbread. The 
later art makes the folds look very natural, by the very 
paradoxical process of making them unnatural. 

A similar convention grows up in connection with 
motion. If marble cannot be given the texture of cloth, 
still less can it be endowed with motion. Nothing is so 
impressively motionless as stone. The wise sculptor will, 
therefore, refrain from attempting too much in this line. 
The greatest works of sculpture have always represented 
subjects permeated with a deep spirit of repose, which 
accords with the impressive restfulness of stone, and 
so allows its stoniness to pass unnoticed. But to wholly 
debar sculpture from suggesting motion would be to 
unduly limit its field. Motion is so universal a charac- 
teristic of life that we cannot get very far in the repre- 
sentation of life without it. How can the sculptor rep- 
resent motion ? 

If the statue is a nude, motion can be suggested by 
attitude. Transition attitudes, to be sure, are apt to lack 
the stability desirable in all works in stone, and so must 
be adapted with great care. What with the feebleness of 
all petrified attitudes on the one hand, and the necessary 
concessions to stone on the other, the motion suggested 
by attitudes is apt to be rather tame. It may be said 
without hesitation that no nude statue representing mo- 
tion approaches in vividness and reality to the more 
quiescent works of Praxitiles or Michel Angelo. More 


expressive than attitude is, perhaps, the study of the 
muscles in their subtle contrast between tension and relax- 
ation. But here the most delicate suggestions are largely 
lost upon us because we are not trained to notice in real 
life these differences which are concealed under clothing. 
We have not the opportunity of the Greeks. 

Turning now to the draped figure we see at once that 
these means of representing motion are lessened or alto- 
gether lost. Drapery conceals the play of the muscles 
and disguises the attitude of the figure. But significantly 
enough, it is draped figures which in sculpture suggest 
motion successfully, and the means by which that sugges- 
tion is made is the drapery itself. Motion encounters 
resistance in the air, and this " wind of motion " agitates 
the drapery. To represent this drapery as agitated, 
therefore, adds a new and powerful suggestion to the 
weakened suggestion of attitude. And here again, the 
sculptor finds he can successfully exaggerate. The actual 
agitation of drapery in motion is slight. A lady may 
walk rapidly along the street or across the room, and her 
smooth hanging skirt will scarcely be rufiled. But no 
sculptor or painter would so represent it if he wished to 
represent her as in motion. Instead of the inappreciable 
effect of a three-mile gait he would represent her skirt as 
agitated by a twenty-mile breeze, making up by hyperbole 
here the inevitable tameness of his other suggestions. 
By an artistic extravagance he thus counteracts a limita- 
tion which inheres in the character of his art, and the net 
result of these counteracting unnaturalnesses is a natural 

This is by no means the end of the conventions of 
sculpture or even of the conventions of drapery. These 
shifting forms, so convenient in their flexible lines and 
shadows, are made to do duty in a multitude of connec- 
tions which have no warrant in nature. Manipulated in 
the interest of texture, manipulated in the interest of 


motion, they are manipulated in the interest of composi- 
tion, of decoration and of almost every interest. Ghiberti 
wishes the long and sinuous curves which are his sign 
manual, his handwriting, so to speak, and as figures, 
trees, etc., cannot be greatly manipulated without attract- 
ing our notice, he finds in the unobserved folds of drap- 
ery his opportunity. The long sweeping curves which 
characterize his draperies are utterly unnatural — real 
drapery folds along straight lines and bends in kinks or 
angles — but these folds irresistibly suggest the grace 
which the great magician loved so well. Drapery sup- 
plies the rhyme and meter by which the prose of nature is 
turned into the poetry of art. 

That there is danger in these conventions goes without 
saying. Ghiberti's curves degenerate into a mannerism 
even in the master's own hand, the melody displacing the 
meaning it was meant to express. The hyperbole of 
motion passes into extravagance and absurdity. The 
limit of art is passed when we become conscious of the 
discrepancy between nature and art. Then fancy be- 
comes fantastic and art degenerates into artifice. Mean- 
while, intent upon his clever juggling, the artist ceases to 
observe nature, and in his care to simulate the naturalness 
that is denied him he overlooks the naturalness that is 
within his reach. Soon the artist ceases to respect nature 
and the observer to look for it in his work. Art has be- 
come mere decorative prettiness, arbitrary and inconse- 
quential. Then comes a reaction. The old art is con- 
demned as trivial and false. Return to nature is the 
invariable cry. But the return to nature invariably en- 
counters the old difficulties, and these in turn produce 
the old conventions. And just because human nature 
always manifests the same weakness, the artist again 
becomes entangled in the meshes of his own cleverness 
and vanity, and art again goes out in a carnival of 
extravagance and artificiality. 


special BtbUofirapbi?. 

Number Eleven. 

From the mass of Raphael literature we select a relatively 
small portion calculated by its well-digested information, its 
suggestive criticism, and its availability, to be especially useful. 
For full lists see Eugene Miintz, Les Historiens et les Critiques 
de Raphael, a volume entirely devoted to bibliography; and the 
Blashfield and Hopkins edition of Vasari's Lives, volume III. 
Vasari and Passavant have furnished material which later 
writers have elaborated, or pruned and corrected. The atten- 
tion given by recent writers to correct 'attribution has resulted 
in numerous changes of ascription of pictures, and the lists, 
given by the writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
and even to the middle of the' nineteenth, must be considered 
unreliable in the light of recent research. 

Raphael has not been subjected to so many of these changes 
as have certain other painters — Leonardo da Vinci, for ex- 
ample. There is little division of opinion as to what designs 
were furnished by him and the controversies rest mainly on 
which of his assistants was engaged on the work in question, 
and where, in the progress of the work, the assistant stepped 
aside and the master took his place and carried the painting to 
completion. At this stage of the student's work a knowledge of 
these controversies is not useless ; the qualities that make Raph- 
ael preeminent in composition, in chiaroscuro and sometimes 
in color, should be understood to fit the student for an intelli- 
gent estimate of his genius. Morelli and Crowe and Cavalca- 
selle should be particularly mentioned for analysis of style. 

Blanc, Charles. Qrammar of Painting and Eng;raving. 
111. N. Y., Hurd, 1874. $6.50. Popular edition, $4.50- 
Scott, $3.00. 

Bigot, Charles. Raphael and the Villa Farneaina, IlL 
London, Kegan Paul, 1884. Limited edition. 42s. 

Illustrations are exquisitely eng^raved. The text, explanatory and histori- 
cal, is very valuable. 

Cartwright, Julia (Mrs. Ady). Early Works of Raphael- 
Ill. Raphael in Rome. 111. N. Y., Macmillan. Each, 75c. 

This popular presentation of the life and works of Raphael sustains the- 
author's reputation for careful investigation. Illustrations are excellent and. 


Chapin, Willis O. The Masters and MasterpieceB of 
Eng;raving. 111. N. Y., Harper, 1894. $10.00. 

Rich in information and pleasing in style. 

CroiTtre, L A., and Cavalcaselle, G. B. Raphael: EQs Life 
and "Works. 2 v. London, Murray, 1882. 1885. Imp. by 
Scribner. $12.60. 

Marked by the same untiring investigation and voluminous criticism that 
distinguished their History of Painting in Italy. However other writers may 
dissent from their conclusions these works must always rank as high author- 

D'Anvers, N. Raphael. Great Artists Series. N. Y., 
Scribner, 1879. $1.25. 

D'Aubigne, Merle. History of the Reformatfon. v. I. 

London, Routledge, 1890. 3s. 6d. 

Belabor de, Henri. ESngraving : its Origin, Processes and 
EQstory. 111. London and N. Y., Cassell, 1886. los. 6d. 

Fisher, Joseph, DraiTTing and Studies by Raffaelle San- 
zio in the University Galleries, Oxford. 111. London, Bell, 

• ■ 

Orimm, Herman. Albert Durer. (tr.) London, Williams 
& Newgate. The original, in German, was published in Berlin, 
1872. Life of Raphael. Boston, Cupples & Hurd, 1888. 
$2.00. Essay, Raphael und Michelangelo. 

It has been said of Grimm that he is to German literature what John 
AddingtonSymondsis to Eng^lish. His thought is lucid, his views broadf, his 
diction brilliant and suggestive. The Life of Raphael is unfinished; of the six 
chapters in the volume cited, each is devoted to the discussion of a single 
painting or closely related group of paintings; but the circumstances and 
growth of Raphael are so amply and suggestively treated in this connection 
that the reader lays down the book with no s>ense of void or incompleteness. 
The last chapter, *' Four Centuries of Fame," tracing the rise and develop- 
ment of the Raphael Cult, is of very great value. The Essay, Raphael und 
Michelangelo, published separately as well as in collections of Grimm*s 
essays, is a chissic. Albert Diirer is recommended particularly because of its 
numerous engravings, illustrating the sixteenth century style of which Diirer 
set the standard in Iialy as well as north of the Alps; lor such illustration the 
more accessible monograph on Diirer in the Knackfuss series, 1900, is also 

Qruyer, F. A. Les Fresquea de Raphael au Vatican. 
1859. iQfr. 50c. Les Vierges de Raphael et 1' Iconographie 
de la Vierge. 3 v. 1869. 3ofr. Raphael et I'antiquite, 1864. 
i5fr. Raphael, peintre de Portraits. 2 v. 1881. i5fr. All 
published in Paris, by Renouard. 

The earlier publications may, perhaps, be found only in long established 
libraries, but well repay one for the search. 

Karoly, Karl. Raphael's Madonnas and Other Qreat 
Pictures. 111. London and N. Y., Bell, 1893. 21s. 

A quarto volume of reproductions and explanatory text; the first of unus- 
ual beauty, the second abounding in information. 

Knackfuss. Raphael. N. Y., Lemcke & Buechner, 1899. 
Tr. $1.50. 

Masters in Art. Raphael Sanzio. Part 12. Boston, Bates 

& Guild. December, 1900. 


Morelli, Giovanni. Italian Masters in German Gkdleries. 

London, Bell, 1883. 

A closely printed, thin-leaved edition, much more full on some points 
than " Italian Painters." 

Muntz, Eugene. A Short History of Tapestry. London 
and N. Y., Cassell, 1885. 5$. Les Historiens et les Cri- 
tiques de Raphael Paris, 1883. 6fr. Les Tapisseries de 
Raphael au Vatican. 111. Paris, Rothschild, 1897. Raph- 
ael: Life, Works and Times. 111. N. Y., Armstrong, 1882. 

Muntz's Life of Raphael, like his Leonardo da Vinci, is the result of 
extensive research and a monumental work. Many of its illustrations are 
photog^raphs of excellent quality for thispurpose. It is the most complete 
biog-raphy of this artist and his times in ^English, and is written in a fascinat- 
ing style. 

Pater, Walter. Raphael : in Biliscellaneous Essays. 
N. Y., Macmillan, 1895. The Story of Cupid and Psyche, 

from the Latin of Lucius Apuleius, illustrated with drawings by 
Raphael, from engravings by Marc Antonio Raimondi. N. Y., 
R. N. Russell, 1901. $3.00. Mosher. 75c. 

Perkins, Charles C. Raphael and Michelangelo. A criti- 
cal and biographical essay. Boston, Osgood, 1878. $5.00. 

Recommended for its sound^and discriminating criticism. 

Potter, Mary Knight. The Art of the Vatican. 111. 
Boston, Page. 1903. $2.00. 

A history of the palace, in brief, and description of its more notable art 
treasures. The well selected illustrations include a " partial plan" of the 
palace and several architectural views, some sculptures, and numerous paint- 
ings well distributed through the schools. 

Robinson, J. C. Critical Account of Drai^vings by Michel- 
angelo and Ra£Eaello in the University of Galleries, Oxford. 
Oxford, 1870. 

Roscoe, Wm. M. The lilfe and Pontificate of Leo the Tenth. 

2 V. Revised ed. London, Bell & Daldy, 1868. (Bohn 
Library.) N. Y., Macmillan. $2.00. 

The original work dates from early in the nineteenth century, but in its 
revised edition is still the most complete work on the subject. 

Springer, Anton. Raffael und Michelangelo. 2 v. 111. 
Leipzig, Seeman, 1883. lom. 50c. 

Strachey, N. Raphael. (Great Masters in Painting and 
Sculpture.) London, Bell. $1.75. 

Recommended for its chronological index, and for the historical notes 
appended to its catalogue of pictures. 

Woodberry, G. E. History of "Wood Engraving. 111. N. Y., 
Harper, 1883. $3.50. 

"Woodbury, Frank P. Luther and Annals of the Reforma- 
tion. Chicago, Revell, 1883. 

In a pocket volume is an intelligently condensed account of the causes, 
rise and progress in all European countries of the Protestant Reformation of 
the sixteenth century. 



American Architect, 1892. v. 62. 

Art Journal, 1892, v. 44 : 1901, v. 53. 

Fortnightly Review, 1892. v. 58. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1873, v. 32 : 1875, v. 37 : 1880, 

V. 47 : 1882, V. 50: 1889, V. 64. 
McClure's Magazine, 1902. v. 18. 
Nineteenth Century, v. 20. 

Xc00on \. 

TIMOTEO Vin (deUa Vite). 1469 7-1523. 
A precursor of Raphael. 
Outline for Study, 

Timoteo's goldsmith training ; influence of earlier 
Lombard masters ; student period in Francia's 
bottega and relations between the two. 

Timoteo's residence in Urbino ; opportunities for 
acquaintance with Raphael ; similarity in the 
works of these two artists; re-appearance of 
Francia's types in Raphael's holy women. 

The moot question whether Timoteo was master 
or follower of Raphael. 

Topics for Further Research, 

The traditional Mary Magdalen. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3570b — Touthful Jesus. 

This beautiful bust of pronounced Lombard characteristics 
was formerly attributed to Cesare da Sesto. 

Compare, in shape of face, type of features, treatment 
of hair, carriage of head, general sentiment, with 1997^, 
1996^, 1986^. Is there any resemblance to Francia ? 
To Costa? What spiritual suggestions are here em- 
bodied ? Has this youth passed through the normal ex- 
perience of a child ? What is the Scriptural idea of 
the boyhood of Jesus ? How may the record of a life- 
time, long or short, be read in a painted face ? 

Is his beauty that of material form or of expression ? 
Is the decorative idea prominent ? 

No. 3575b — The Magdalen in the Desert. 

Is the Cave a natural formation ? Is the landscape 
skilfully represented? Is there Scriptural warrant for 


placing Mary Magdalen here ? What attributes of the 
Magdalen are present ? Is this representation psycho- 
logically satisfactory ? Is it the work of a profound 
thinker? Is it as significant as the Youthful Jesus ? 

What elements of beauty are here ? Do you recall 
another picture where the female anchorite is repre- 
sented with such abundant hair ? Is the mantle painted 
with a view to grace, texture, truthfulness ? 

Would it not have been easy to make this a stiff, unin- 
teresting picture ? How has the artist avoided such 
an effect ? Does it denote a scientific study of desigfi ? 
Is there an elaborate arrangement of leading lines ? Or 
a brilliant effect from opposing masses of light and 
dark ? Is it conceived in a naturalistic temper ? 

3570b . . . Brescia — Martinengo Coll. : Youthful Jesus. 
3575** • • • Bologna — Gallery: Magdalen in the Desert. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. I, 577-583. 
Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Raphael, v. I. 42-43. 

Kugler. Italian Schools, v. II. 370-374. 

Morelli ...... Italian Masters in German Galleries. 285- 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 48. 

Miintz Raphael. 22-24. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 127-128. (Note.) 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 418-420. 

In addition to the above references, allusions to the relations 
between Timoteo Viti and Raphael may be found in all 
recent biographies of the latter. 

RAPHAEL 8ANZIO (RaffaeUo Santi). 1483-1520. 

' ' The great asstmilator." 

Outline for Study, 


Various lines of art and research that engaged 
Raphael's attention ; consider as a painter, 


decorator,, sculptor, designer of architecture, 
archaeologist ; his capacity for work and unfail- 
ing enthusiasm. 

Raphael's eclecticism ; receptiveness of his mind ; 
practical knowledge of the requirements of tech- 
nical perfection in art ; his facility in design ; 
mastery of composition ; creator of " final 
types " of prophets, priests, madonnas, etc. 

Sienese and Ferrarese traits in his paintings ; 
his purity of taste ; the supreme beauty of his 
work, its freedom from singularity, its sincerity. 

An estimate of the master's power and methods 
imperfect without a knowledge of his prelimi- 
nary drawings; the large amount of such 
material extant. 

In Urbino. 

Raphael's birthplace ; the court of Urbino — its 
intelligent and generous care for the arts ; 
Giovanni Santi's heritage to his son. 

Conjecture as to Raphael's first instructors ; funda- 
mental traits of character revealed in his earliest 
paintings; Vision of a Knight; little St. 

In Perugia. 

Raphael in Perugino's bottega ; Perugino's style 
versus Timoteo Viti's ; Raphael's modification 
of Perugino's ideals. 

The religious temper of Umbrian art and Raph- 
ael's interpretation of it ; his paintings during 
the Perugian period; indebtedness to his 
master in Coronation of the Virgin and the 

Sposalizio ; characteristics of these paintings 
that were retained throughout his life. 

[See '* Sposalizio at Caen," Berenson, Study and Criti- 
cism of Italian Art. v. II. 1-23.] 

Raphael's connection with Pinturicchio ; the so- 
called Raphael's Sketch-book at Venice. 

Urbino revisited ; St. George and the Dragon ; 
Raphael's portrait. 

1 504-1508. 
Florentine period. 

First visit to Florence ; the intensity of art inter- 
est in the Tuscan capital ; incentives to more 
vital work ; the brilliant group of artists as- 
sembled there in 1504; the cartoons of Leon- 
ardo and Michael Angelo. 

Traces of Leonardo's influence ; portraits of 
Agnolo and Maddalena Doni ; lack of subtlety 
in early portraits. 

Raphael's devotion to the study of anatomy; 
emancipation from the limitations of Peru- 
gino's school. 

Intimacy with Fra Bartolommeo and its effect 
upon Raphael's art. 

Return to Perugia; the fresco of San Severo 
another proof of the artists' eclecticism and a 
forerunner of the " Disputa." (See 3435^.) 

Second visit to Florence ; Raphael's growth in 
mastery of composition and expression; the 
Entombment for Atalanta Baglioni ; this period 
productive of altar pieces and small Madonna 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3402b— Vision of a Knight 

This painting, less than 5x7 inches, is one of the earliest 
extant examples of Raphael's work. The allegory is inter- 


preted as the choice which each true knight must make between 
duty and pleasure. 

How would you explain the picture were its title not 
given ? Do the two maidens successfully express two 
contrasting ideas ? Is there an endeavor to make the 
moral lesson paramount? Are grace and beauty the 
main motives ? Does the touch of mysticism add charm 
to the picture ? Does it detract from its interest ? Was 
the artist hampered by the requirements of the allegory ? 
Are the figures correctly drawn ? Are the attitudes 
natural ? Movement free ? Is this a satisfactory repre- 
sentation oiE slumber ? Cf. 1900^. 

Does the landscape bear the proper relation to the 
figures in proportions ? In chiaroscuro ? How is the 
effect of distance produced ? Was this a familiar land- 
scape to Raphael ? Have you seen it in other pictures ? 
Cf. Pinturicchio, Perugino, Francia and the Florentines. 
Why is the tree introduced in the foreground ? Does it 
fulfil its purpose ? What is noteworthy in its treatment ? 

What evidence in this picture of maturity or immatur- 
ity ? What traces of originality ? What of imitation ? 

No. 3405 b — St. Sebastian. 

This picture, formerly ascribed to Eusebio di S. Giorgio or to 
Lo Spagna is now given by Morelli and Berenson to Raphael. 

How do you know that this is intended for St. Sebas- 
tian ? How does it differ from other representations .'* Cf . 
3218^, 2016^, 1905^. In what respects does it follow 
traditional treatment ? 

Was the subject, as a character presentation, deeply 
felt by the artist ? What motives can you suggest for 
painting this bust ? Is it an example of good drawing ? 

Do such marked resemblances exist as to prove the 
influence of Perugino, Timoteo Viti or other painters ? 
Does the treatment of the hair recall other artists? 
(Compare carefully and discover the source of inspira- 


tion for this picture.) Is this type found in other paint- 
ings by Raphael? What other artist could have 
painted such a head — so nafve, beautiful, pure ? 

No. 3408b — Marriage of the Virgin. 
No. 3409b — Detail of 3408b . 

This picture, known as the Sposalizio, was painted for the 
church of San Francesco at Citta di Castello, an Umbrian town 
for which several of Raphael's early works were executed. In 
Berenson, *' Study and Criticism of Italian Art,*' volume II., 
will be found an interesting comparison of this with the very 
similar picture at Caen, France, long attributed to Perugino. 
The architecture suggests the work of Bramante, Raphael's dis- 
tinguished fellow-townsman. 

What effect has the temple on the composition ? Is 
its form adapted to the picture ? Is the curve of the 
frame repeated or suggested in the painting ? 

Does the bridal party appear to stand on level ground 
or on an inclined plane ? Was this the artist's intention ? 
Are the distant groups of figures in correct proportion to 
those in the foreground ? What other artists have intro- 
duced similar groups in the middle distance and back- 
ground ? Has Raphael improved upon them ? 

Is 3408^ filled with life and movement? Is it char- 
acteristic of every great artist that his creative energy 
seems not to flag in any part of his composition? Are 
the figures without affectation ? Are they modified in the 
interest of beauty? Is there variety in this respect? 
How do you explain it ? Is there any mannerism com- 
mon to this and the maidens of 3402^ and to 3422^? How 
does the emblem carried by Joseph differ from those 
carried by the others ? 

Are the heads of 3409^ the same type as St. Sebas- 
tian ? Is the type original with Raphael or derived ? 
Cf. 1951^, 3053^- Is difference in age satisfactorily ex- 
pressed? What advance in 3409^ ? Cf. 1896^, 1900^, 
1907^ , 1910^ . 


Which of these pictures is distinguished by greater 
vivacity ? Compare the head in the center of 3409** with 
any later work by Raphael, especially Madonnas. Is it 
excelled in delicacy, in unconscious beauty, in spirit? 
How great was Perugino's influence over Raphael at this 
time ? How far was the latter an independent artist ? 

Compare 3408^ with 1897^. Which of these composi- 
tions best fills the space allotted to it?. In which are the 
foreground figures best distributed? In which more 
depth of space ? More repose ? Which the more like a 
real event ? 

No. 3426i> — The Entombment. 

Painted by order of Atalanta Baglione for the family chapel in 
S. Francesco, Perugia, in memory of her son Grifone who had 
been killed in one of the bloody family feuds for which Perugia 
was famous. The altarpiece consisted, besides this large panel, 
of a tympanum representing God the Father with angels ; and a 
predella of three panels. The tympanum is still at Perugia and 
the predella at the Vatican. Numerous studies exist, showing 
how carefully Raphael prepared for this, the most important of 
his early commissions and how his conception of the event 
changed as his mind dwelt upon it. 

Is this composition well knit together ? Ai:e there any 
elements that distract attention from the central 
thought ? Is there a rigid economy of accessories — do 
all serve to explain the event ? 

Was the picture painted chiefly because of a religious 
impulse? Is the composition realistic in all its details? 
Is it dramatic ? Is emotion overwrought ? Is action 
properly restrained ? Is there a natural contrast between 
the rigidity of death and the flexibility of living forms ? 
Who is the splendid youth at the feet of Jesus ? Com- 
pare the sitting figure at the right with 3801^. How 
has Raphael modified this suggestion ? Is it equally 
appropriate in the two pictures ? Why did Raphael 
choose it ? 

Compare with Perugino's Deposition, 1909^. Which 


work is the more sincere ? More reposeful ? Do they 
represent in a suitable manner two consecutive moments 
of the event ? Does this explain their different treat- 
ment? What is there in Raphael's choice of subject 
that offers especial incentives to a young artist ? Is there 
the same kind and degree of difference between these 
two pictures as between the two of the Sposalizio? 

Has Raphael's Entombment the grace and beauty of 
his Sposalizio ? Is it technically more free ? Compare 
both with his later work. Which expresses the best 
tendency of Raphael's art ? Which did he follow out 
most consistently ? 


3403b . . . London — National Gallery. Vision of a Knight. 

3405b . . . Bergamo — Lochis Coll. St. Sebastian. 

3408b . . . Milan — Brera. Marriage of the Virgin. 

3409b . . . Group of Heads : Detail of 3408b . 

3426b . . . Rome — Borghese. The Entombment. 


Xc00on 2. 

THE MADONNAS OF Rojrn » ni ■ 

Outline for Study. 

Evolution of the Madonna ideal : * The ceremon- 
ial Madonnas of Byzantine art, symbol of the 
church. ^ The Madonna enthroned. ® The 
mother filled with foreboding for her child. 
^ The frankly human type, full of the joy of 

Importance of the Madonna subject in a survey 
of Raphael's work ; his steady growth in feeling, 
power and subtlety, traceable from the Solly 
Madonna to Madonna di San Sisto. 

Qualities that bring all of the Madonnas into re- 
semblance to each other ; Madonnas in which 
the same model is apparent ; variety in pose 
and grouping. 

Madonnas of the Berlin Museum ; evidences of a 
youthful mind. 

Madonnas and Holy Families of' the Perugin- 
esque period ; reminders in dress and senti- 
ment of earlier types. 

The Florentine Madonnas ; fusion of Umbrian 
and Florentine characteristics ; Raphael's inter- 
est in landscape; indications of acquaintance 
with Leonardo's work ; increasing skill in the 
composition of Raphael's groups ; Fra Barto- 
lommeo's influence. 

Raphael's interpretation of the Christ-child ; the 
part played in his designs by angels and 

Madonnas of the Roman period indicative of a 
change of feeling ; freedom in handling ; evi- 
dence of the hand of assistants. 


Perfection of Raphael's art in this field ; damag- 
ing restorations to which many of his pictures 
have been subjected. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

Peruginesque period. 

No. 3400b — SoUy Madonna. 

On wood, nearly life-size. Named from the private collection 
from which it was acquired by the Berlin Museum. Painted 
about 1502, according to Morelli, after a drawing by Pinturic- 

What evidences of immaturity in this work ? Is it the 
same kind of immaturity seen in the works of fourteenth 
century artists ? Does Madonna's figure give the impres- 
sion of fulness and solidity ? Is she graceful ? Are 
head and hands naturally posed ? Are hands well 
drawn ? How correctly are features proportioned to the 
face in either mother or child .^ Cf. 1938**, 1937^, 
1910^. What resemblances in shape of face, features, 
the Child's body > 

Is the Child normal in shape ? Is he comfortably 
seated ? How is he draped ? Is there a similar effect of 
drapery elsewhere in this picture or in other Madonnas 
by Raphael? What does Madonna's dress suggest? 
Is the bird a religious symbol or a plaything ? Is the 
motif of the open book a frequent one ? Does Raphael 
repeat it? 

Is the landscape properly subordinated to the figures ? 
Is it reminiscent of Perugino or of Pinturicchio ? 

Is Madonna a new type? Cf. 1896^. Is this type, in 
a modified form, common to Raphael's Madonnas ? 
Is this daintiness characteristic of them ? Is the senti- 
ment of the picture profoundly religious ? 

No. 3410b — Madonna del Granduca. 

(**The farthest advance of which the Peruginesque type was 

Wood, about two-thirds life size. Painted 1504. Few works 


by Raphael equal this in delicacy of coloring and finish. The 
name is taken from Ferdinand III. , Grand Duke of Tuscany earlj 
in the nineteenth century, who prized the picture so highly that 
he carried it on all his journeys. It had previously been in the 
possession of a poor woman, who, ignorant of its value, sold it 
for twelve scudi (about twelve dollars). 

How does this differ from 3400^ in bearing, sentiment, 
drawing, technique ? Is the drapery more successfully 
treated ? What has the Child gained ? 

In what consists the perfect loveliness of this Ma- 
donna? Is she particularly distinguished by maternal 
feeling? Cf. 245 o*>, 3423^, 3027^, 34i8*», 346o'>, 3530^. 
Is there a mystical element ? Cf. 1630^ . , 

Florentine period. 

No. 3418^ — Madonna di Casa Tempi. 

Owned in the seventeenth century by the Tempi family of 
Florence. Sold, 1829, to King Ludwig of Bavaria. Morel li 
considers that it was painted near the time of Madonna del 

What change is denoted by the attitude of the mother 
toward the child? Cf. 3400^, 3410^. Is it carried out 
in other details, dress, features, drawing ? Is the loss of 
simplicity regrettable in this case? If an altarpiece, 
would this inspire a deeper devotion than the others ? 

Is more life infused into this ? Is the action wholly 
natural ? Is feeling intense or restrained ? Does the 
child warmly respond to his mother^s caress ? Would 
true art permit that ? What part of an incident like this 
is fitting for artistic reproduction ? 

No. 3414b — Madonna del Cardellino : detail. 
No. 3423b — La Belle Jardiniere. 

• (Old number, 2450b , published with Outline Number One.) 

No. 3427 b — Madonna del Prato. 

These three Madonna groups, painted from 1505-1507, illus- 
trate, perhaps, the best side of Raphael's art. Each is placed in 
a landscape, each consists of Mary with the infant Jesus and 


John the Baptist. Fra Bartolommeo*s influence is believed to be 
shown in the shape of these compositions. All are on wood. 

Madonna del Cardellino (of the Goldfinch, which John brings 
for Jesus to caress) was painted as a wedding gift for Raphael's 
friend Nasi, of Florence ; it was broken in many pieces when an 
earthquake destroyed its owner's house, 1548, but was skilfully 
repaired ; the head only is reproduced, to illustrate more clearly 
Raphael's type of beauty. La Belle Jardiniere was purchased 
by Francis I. from a merchant of Siena and was one of the royal 
collection that formed the nucleus of the Louvre galleries. Ma- 
donna del Prato (of the Meadow) was a gift from Raphael to 
Taddeo Taddei as a token of gratitude for his entertainment at 
the latter's home while in Florence. 

JWhat geometrical form do these groups suggest ? Has 
the artist had any difficulty in adapting it to his subject ? 
Is it too obvious ? Has he produced quiet, harmonious 
groups without emphasizing leading lines ? 

Have the Madonna faces gained in expressiveness ? 
Were they inspired by the same model ? Are they still 
in the manner of Perugino .'* Is Leonardo's influence 
evident? Is the beauty of these types physical or spirit- 
ual ? Do they suggest intellectual ability ? Observe the 
dressing of the hair — where else is this coiffure found 
in Raphael's works ? 

Are the children more intelligent ? Is John's attitude 
accidental or intentionally devotional ? Is the Christ- 
child divine ? What change in the children's forms ? 
Cf. 3422^. Are they too graceful for infancy? Are 
proportions, hands and feet faultless ? How do they 
compare with children by other artists ? Cf. Perugino, 
Pinturicchio, Leonardo, the della Robbia and later 

How has the artist led the eye into the extreme dis- 
tance? What effect have these landscapes upon the 
sentiment of the pictures ? Is such use of landscape 
original with Raphael ? Are these thin-foliaged trees a 
mannerism or did they actually exist ? Cf . Perugino and 



No. 3421b — Madonna del Cordero. 

(Also called Holy Family with the Lamb.) 

Sj4 X 11^ inches. Painted with the utmost taste and trans- 
parency; the gem of the Raphaels in thePrado. 

How much of its interest does this group owe to its 
setting? Does the landscape resemble otliers of this 
period ? What change in the tree ? Why is the flight of 
birds introduced ? 

Is there any suggestion of divine symbolism ? Is this 
more than a pretty domestic incident ? Is there any 
deeper feeling in Mary and Joseph than parental amuse- 
ment ? Where has this mott/ of the child playing with 
the lamb occurred before in our study ? Is there any 
connection? What would this indicate as to the time 
the picture was painted ? Why not much later ? Which 
of the pictures referred to has the most spiritual signifi- 
cance ? 

Where else in Raphael's paintings may this child's 
counterpart be found ? Is he always the same graceful, 
warm, beautiful little creatuie ? 

Is the form of the composition pleasing ? What curves 
are repeated ? 

No. 3422b — Madonna Ansidei. 

(Called also the Blenheim Madonna.) 

On wood, 9x5 feet. Painted the same year as the Entomb- 
ment, by order of the Ansidei family, for the chapel of St. 
Nicholas, San Fiorenzo, Perugia. In the collection of the 
Duke of Marlborough at Blenheim before it was purchased by 
the British government for $360,000 (the largest sum ever paid 
for a single picture). It is unusually well preserved. 

It is one of the class of pictures known as Santi Conversa- 
zione, although those compositions are seldom limited to as few 
figures. The two saints are John the Baptist and Nicholas of 
Bari. The predella, containing scenes from the life of John the 
Baptist, is separated from the main composition. 

What is Madonna's occupation ? Has this idea been 
presented before in your picture study? Which of the 


preceding Madonnas does this most resemble ? Is there 
anything in the place for which it was painted, the object 
it was to serve or in Raphael's experience from 1502 to 
1505 to account for this ? 

Are the saints strongly contrasted ? Is that demanded 
by the legends concerning them ? Does this correspond 
with the ordinary pictorial conception of . John the Bap- 
tist ? Of what material is his cross ? Are his limbs well 
modeled ? Does this position of the feet occur in other 
pictures by Raphael ? Cf . Perugino. What emblems 
accompany St. Nicholas ? Where else has Raphael rep- 
resented an aged countenance in a similar manner ? Is 
advanced age unmistakable in these instances ? 

To what extent is Raphael original and independent 
of Peruginesque influence in this work ? Does it seem to 
belong to the same period of advancement as The En- 
tombment ? 

Roman period. 

No. 3462^ — Madomia Garvagh. 

(Also known as the Aldobrandini Madonna.) 

On wood, 15 X 13 inches. From the Aldobrandini collection 
at Rome it passed into the possession of Lady Garvagh of 
London ; thence to the National Gallery. 

Is this Madonna from a different model? Is the 
change easily defined or is it too subtle for definition ? 
Is there more freedom of movement ? An air of gayety ? 
What change in dress ? Is there more seeking for tex- 
tures ? 

Are the children a reappearance from a former paint- 
ing ? Is the landscape used with more happy effect in 
this or in 3422^ ? Where is this scene from.** Is the 
group more closely interwoven ? Does the picture indi- 
cate a more complete mastery of composition ? 

No. 34601) — Madomia dell' Impannata. 

On wood, nearly 5 X 4 feet. The name is derived from the 
linen window-pane. Painted in Rome for Bindo Altoviti by 


pupils from Raphael's design, with finishing touches from the 
hand of the master. Bindo parted with it to Cosimo, Grand 
Duke of Tuscany. 

How does this differ from 3462^ in types, sentiment, 
execution ? Is the scene laid in high life or humble ? 
How much do the attendant figures add to the beauty and 
interest of the picture ? In what respect is John the 
Baptist an innovation ? Is his gesture an efficient means 
of interesting us in the Christ-child ? Could a better 
means have been devised ? Is his face one of beauty, of 
deep meaning ? Is his form as refined as is usual in 
Raphael's work ? 

Is this type of Christ-child found in other groups by 
Raphael ? Explain the child's action. Interpret Mary's 
expression. Does she remain ideal in character ? 

With what success is advanced age rendered in Eliza- ' 
beth ? Is this in accordance with Scriptural tradition ? 

No. 3487^ — Madonna del Pesca. 

(Madonna of the Fish.) 

Painted on wood during the pontificate of Julius II., for a pri- 
vate chapel in San Domenico, Naples, resorted to for prayer by 
persons afflicted with diseases of the eye. Hence the appropri- 
ateness of Tobit with the fish that cured his father's blindness. 
St. Jerome was the first translator of the Book of Tobit. The 
lion that crouches at his feet is now scarcely discernible in ordi- 
nary light. 

The picture was taken to Spain in 1644 and placed in the 
Escorial. On the French invasion, 1813, it was carried to Paris 
and there transferred to canvas ; but returned to Madrid a few 
years later. 

Who is the principal, the superior personage — mother 
or child? Cf. 3531^ in this respect. Is the Christ-child 
interested in Tobit more than he usually is in his wor- 
shipers ? Does Tobit approach hesitatingly? What en- 
couragement is given him ? 

Is the angel a truly heavenly vision ? Is there any 


trace of the grossness of earth ? Is there any motive 
for his appearance here but to present the suppliant ? 
Why is the saint so little moved by this vision ? Is this 
a familiar way of representing St. Jerome ? 

Is this composition in the grand manner ? How does 
it differ in feeling from 3462^? Are Raphael's early 
simplicity and lucidity lost here ? 

^ No. 3499^ — Madonna della Sedia. 

(Madonna of the Chair; called also della Seggiola.) 

On wood, 3 feet, 4^ inches diameter. Painted entirely by 
Raphael's hand probably for Pope Leo X. or some member of 
the Medici family. 

Of what are Madonna and the Child thinking ? Has 
the latter's expression appeared before in our study of 
Raphael ? Does it appear again ? Is the little John 
harmonious with the others in sentiment ? Why is he a 
peculiarly Raphaelesque child ? Is anything gained by 
making the Christ-child older ? 

Is this a simple or intricate composition .? Is it fitted 
into the enclosing circle without emphasis on any line 
or form ? How are the positions of the figures modified 
to secure the harmonious adjustment? Are they made 
unnatural ? What spirit is emphasized by this means ? 
What would be the effect of leaving out the upright 
part of the chair ? Is that vertical form repeated } 
Are the hands expressive ? Natural ? 

Explain the popularity of this picture. 

No. 3522b _- Madonna of Francis I. 

(Also called the large Holy family of the Louvre.) 

Painted on wood ; transferred to canvas. Presented to Francis 
I. by Pope Leo X. in 15 18. The color is hard and unpleasing 
and it is suspected that much of the work was done by 
Giulio Romano. It is interesting to note that, although this 
is a late picture (see date above), the drawing for the angel has 
been found among Raphael's early sketches. 


Are there two motives or is interest centered in one ? 
Would the group be complete without Joseph ? Is he 
too large a figure for that position in the background ? 
Is he a portrait ? Interpret his expression. What marks 
this as one of Raphael's latest works ? Why is it repose- 
ful despite the excited activity of some of the figures ? 

Is Madonna's figure girlish or matronly? Is there any 
change in this respect between his early and late repre- 
sentations of Mary? Does anything similar to the angel 
with the flowers appear elsewhere in his paintings? Cf. 
3487**. How strong is the spiritual element here ? 

How is this picture allied in feeling to Madonna 
Garvagh ? What phase in Raphael's development do 
they represent ? 

No. 3530b ^ Madonna di San Sisto. 
No. 3531b — Detail of above. 

Canvas, 9X x 7 feet. Painted for the Convent of San Sisto, 
Piacenza. Long considered Raphael's latest Madonna but recent 
critics believe that its execution antedates Madonna of Francis 
I. As Raphael's Madonnas were almost without exception 
on wood, it has been suggested that this was painted on canvas 
that it might be borne in processions. The attendant saints, 
with their appropriate emblems, are St. Sixtus and St. Barbara. 
The picture is believed to have been painted entirely by Raphael. 
It was bought, 1753, ^J Augustus III., Elector of Saxony, and 
hung in the Dresden Gallery. A copy replaces it in Piacenza. 

Does the movement of Madonna's draperies suggest 
walking merely? On what does she stand ? What is her 
background ? Where is her attention directed ? That 
of the Child ? Interpret her expression. Is it joy, antic- 
ipation ? Has it something of apprehension ? To what 
physical feature is this expression due? Study eyes, 
mouth, contour of face. 

Is there a resemblance between mother and child ? 
Is he spiritually her son ? How is he changed from the 
gleeful infant of earlier paintings? Is there loss or 


gain in the spiritual content of the picture through re- 
ducing the animal beauty of the child? Is his attitude 
infantile ? Is it significant ? 

Are the saints equally absorbed in devotion ? Equally 
sincere ? Why does St. Sixtus point out of the picture ? 
Why does St. Barbara turn her face toward us ? Is it 
a face full of beauty, of earnestness ? 

Why the rough hair of the child and St. Sixtus and 
the careless dressing of Mary's ? Why the contrast of 
St. Barbara with the others? 

Are the cherubs an essential part of the design ? Do 
they reinforce the impression made by Madonna and the 
child ? Do they dissipate it ? In what does their at- 
tractiveness consist ? 

What refinements of design do you notice? Is its 
general form as evident as in earlier works ? Are all 
parts skilfully united and blended ? Is there an economy 
of line — is every one directly contributory to a well 
considered effect? Is this observable in the other 
Madonna pictures ? 

Cf. 3526^. Is there a resemblance between that por- 
trait and Raphael's later Madonnas ? 

Justify the reputation that this picture holds. 
General Questions, 

Are Raphael's Madonnas distinguished by elegance as 
well as beauty? Do they suggest superior birth and 
breeding or are they of lowly origin ? Are they charac- 
terized by sobriety, earnestness ? Are they ever trifling 
or indifferent? Are they highly intellectual? Have 
they passed through profound spiritual experience ? Is 
that necessary for the ideal mother of the infant Christ ? 

What evidences of Sienese influence in the earlier 
Madonnas ? Is this perpetuated in the later ? 

Does the same type of female form prevail throughout 
these pictures? Is Madonna's bearing suggestive of 
motherliness ? Are the faintly lined eyebrows a man- 


nerism or a feature of the models ? Do the changing 
types of Madonna and child group these pictures into 
distinct periods ? In which do you suspect the work of 
assistants ? (Let your answer be dictated by your own 
analysis of the pictures, without recourse to books.) 

Was Raphael unusually sympathetic with children? 
(Compare with the holy infants and putti of many other 
artists.) Was he capable of passionate emotion ? Was 
he swayed by widely divergent moods? Should you 
characterize him as a deeply religious painter? What 
other artists have invested this subject with more inter- 
est ? More beauty? More spirituality? More signifi- 
cance ? 

3400b, . . Berlin — Old Museum. Solly Madonna. 

3410b. , . Florence — Pitti. Madonna del Granduca. 

3414b. . . Florence — Uffizi. Madonna del Cardellino : detail. 

3418b. . . Munich — Old Gallery. Madonna di Casa Tempi. 

3421b. . . Madrid — Prado. Madonna del Cordero. 

3432b. . . London — National Gallery. Madonna Ansidei. 

3423b. . . Paris — Louvre. La Belle Jardiniere. (Old number, 

24Sob . ) 
3427b . . . Vienna — Imperial Gallery. Madonna del Prato. 
3460b. . . Florence — Pitti. Madonna delP Impannata. 
3462b. . . London — National Gallery. Madonna Garvagh. 
3487b . . . Madrid — Prado. Madonna del Pesce. 
3499b. . . Florence — Pitti. Madonna della Sedia. 
3522b. . . Paris — Louvre. Madonna of Francis L 
3530b , . . Dresden — Gallery. Madonna di San Sisto. 
3531^' • • Dresden — Gallery. Detail of 3530b . 


Xc00on 3. 


Outline for Study, 

Art in Rome under Popes Julius II. and Leo X. ; 
cliques at the Papal Court; occasion of Ra- 
phael's invitation to the Eternal City. 

* Raphael's frescos in the Vatican. 

The Stanze ; their location ; preceding decora- 
tors ; general arrangement of Raphael's frescos 
there ; connected cycle of designs. 

Camera della Segnatura. 1509-1511. 

Intellectual unity of the plan of decoration and 
its catholicity ; large allegorical designs and 
personification of abstract ideas — their inter- 
relation ; interest of subordinate groups ; beauty, 
dignity and naturalness of individual figures. 

Raphael's fresco in San Severo, Perugia, the pro- 
totype of the Disputa ; his intimate acquaint- 
ance with the history of Philosophy indicated 
by the School of Athens; his ingenuity in 
allegorical device. 

The success of Raphael's endeavor ; his mastery 
of space-composition ; adaptation of groups to 
difficult wall-spaces; interest of Julius II. in 
his work. 

Camera d' Eliodoro. 1512-1514. 
Glorification of the church in the person of the 
reigning pope ; scenes from Scripture, history or 
ecclesiastical tradition invested with double 
meaning; continuation of the work under 
Leo X. ; Raphael's increasing skill as colorist ; 
the assistance of pupils noticeable. 


Camera dell' Incendio. 1514-1517. 

Subjects of the frescos, events from lives of the 
popes ; only the Fire in the Borgo and the car- 
toons by Raphael's hand ; increase of dramatic 
temper ; absence of the dignity and repose 
characteristic of Raphael's best work. 

Sala di Costantino. 

The work of Raphael's pupils after his death; 
his designs modified or changed ; the general 
scheme historical ; experiments in oil. 

Raphael's Loggia; the decoration in part 
after Raphael's designs — its distribution ; pic- 
torial portion, scenes from Bible narrative ; 
wealth of ornamental detail — its connection 
with discoveries in archaeological excavations ; 
the whole scheme an epitome of the careless 
gayety and grace of the times. 


These frescos by Raphael's own hand ; his in- 
terpretation of the sibyl character; influence 
of Michelangelo ; grace of the arrangement ; 
assistance of Timoteo Viti. 



Agostino Chigi, the self-made man; his display 
of wealth and patronage of art; the appeal 
made to Raphael by Pagan mythology ; the 
Triumph of Galatea ; the fable of Psyche, de- 
signed by the master, executed by assistants. 

Frescos in S. Agostino; in La Magliano; mytho- 
logical paintings on the walls of Cardinal 
Bibbiena's bath room. 

Possibilities of Raphael as a frescante had he 
been permitted to work without interruption ; 
monumental character of his designs ; their 


freedom from effort ; difficulty of arriving at a 
just estimate of his work — complication caused 
by the employment of assistants ; popular de- 
mand for the dramatic — its influence upon 
Raphael's art. 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Vatican Palace. 

Librarians of the Vatican. 

Erudite Society in Rome during the pontificate of 
Leo X. ; the Pope's character ; the Church ; 
Ecclesiastics and polite learning. 

The Roman Academy. 

The Lutheran Reformation ; contrast between 
Rome as Luther saw it and the Rome of Eras- 
mus and Raphael.. 

The Story of Psyche ; Story of Galatea. 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 13. Interior view of Camera della Segnatora. 

The four rooms called the Stanze of Raphael extend from 
side to side of a wing of the Vatican. They were used as papal 
state apartments in the early sixteenth century. Three, the 
Camera dell* Incendio, della Segnatura and d'Eliodoro are of 
similar dimensions, nearly square, with windows on two sides; 
the pendentives of their vaulted ceilings droop low in each 
corner; thus the upper part of each side wall forms a semi- 
circular arch, like a vast lunette. The dado, about the height 
of a man, was once in intarsia with finely carved seats; the 
wood ornamentation is replaced by paintings in grisaille. The 
mosaic floor still exists. The entire wall surface was covered 
with rich decoration which, in the day of its freshness, must 
have been incomparably splendid. Compare with similar rooms 
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Sala di Costantino 
was a larger apartment, oblong, with flat ceiling and lighted 
from one side. In the Reproduction are shown one end of 
the Camera della Segnatura and part of one long, unbroken 
side; the paintings are Parnassus and School of Athens and, 
in the pendentive, the allegorical device variously called Astron- 
omy, Fortune, or Creation of the Worlds. 


No. 3435^ — Dispute of the Sacrament. 

(LaDisputa; or Theology.) 

No. 3436b — Christ. No. 3437b _ Angels. 

No. 3438b — Saints and Martyrs. 

Details of 3435b . 

Raphael's first fresco in the Vatican after the completion of 
the ceiling medallions in this camera. The Italian name, La 
Disputa, is more exactly translated by the word Discussion. 
The scene is conceived within the newly projected walls of St. 
Peter's. Bramante leans over the balustrade at the left; Dante 
and Savonarola may be seen at the right. Above, ranged on 
either side of the Savior, are Old Testament worthies, Apostles, 
and Saints of later creation, each with appropriate emblems. 

Trace the main lines of the composition. How far are 
they suggested by the existing architectural forms ? Are 
they parallel ? Are they opposing lines ? In how many 
ways is the circular form emphasized ? Are there verti- 
cal circles and horizontal ones ? 

How is the mind led into the distance ? Is there an 
illusion of space that destroys the feeling of a solid wall ? 
Is this admissible in good decoration ? How has Raph- 
ael avoided this — /. <?., how has he preserved the sense 
of a flat, vertical section ? 

Is there undue separation between the upper and 
lower parts of the picture ? Is there a reason for this 
separation ? Are they connected in any way ? Is the 
picture empty ? Is it too crowded in any part ? Is it 
animated ? Are lights and darks agreeably distributed ? 

Is the arrangement modern for that period ? Are the 
figures conventional ? Is the emblem of each saint made 
prominent ? 

What is the symbolical significance of this Christ ? 
Who accompany him on either side ? Why should one 
kneel while the other is seated ? Is this a common rep- 
resentation of the Trinity ? Is it disturbing ? 

What is the character of the clouds ? Are the putti in- 
appropriate ? How do they help the design ? Are the 


Saints and Martyrs well characterized ? Are the angels 
well poised? Cf. 3052^, 1900^. Are they as full of 
meaning as that in 3487^? 

Is the picture beautiful in its individual parts ? Are 
these so combined as to make an effective whole ? Are 
they lost in the general effect ? 

No. 3439b — PamaBBUB. (Poetry.) 
No. 3440b _ ApoUo. No. 3441^ — Sappho : details of 

No. 3439b . 

The composition is arranged over the top and part way down 
either side of a window. Apollo and the Muses are environed 
by poets ; amongst them are Homer, Dante, Virgil, Petrarch 
beside Sappho on the left ; Pindar and Horace on the opposite 

What difficulties did Raphael encounter in designing 
for this space ? Was his design hampered ? Was its 
interest enhanced ? Is the grouping unnatural ? Is the 
shape of the space called to mind by the arrangement of 
figures ? 

Compare with La Disputa. Is there a similar arrangement 
of circular groups (/. #»., ellipses or circles in perspective) ? 
How is the larger circle broken — what form is taken by the 
group of Apollo and the Muses? Does that bring the eye back 
from the distance toward the front of the picture ? Why is that 
an effect to besought? Do the upright lines disturb the compo- 
sition? Do they help it ? Is it necessary, in good decoration, 
to parallel enclosing lines ? 

Where is this assembly supposed to be ? Does that 
modify its character ? Does dignity or grace predom- 
inate.? Cf. 3435^ » 3442^. 

What musical instrument was dedicated to Apollo by 
classic tradition? What reason for Raphael's innova- 
tion ? Why are some of the figures here crowned ? Why 
is Dante placed near Homer ? Who was Sappho ? Was 
she connected with Petrarch ? Is the arrangement 
natural or fortuitous? 

Is this Raphael's first essay in the treatment of a 


(pagan) mythological theme ? Is his artistic temper par 
ticularly suited to it? Is there a similar blending of 
myth and history elsewhere in his paintings ? Why are 
we not disturbed by such presentation of incongruous 
ideas ? 

Is there peculiar beauty in any of the actors ? Cf. 
RaphaePs Madonnas. Are all parts of the picture up to 
the same level ? Was Raphael ever less than serious in 
his art ? 

No. 3442b — School of Athens (Philosophy). 
No. 3443^ — MathemaUcians : detail of 3442 ^ . 

This fresco covers the long, unbroken wall opposite La Dis- 
puta. The order in which the great frescos of this Camera were 
painted, after the first, is not certain. During the painting of La 
Disputa Raphael's style so developed that it stands, in a sense, 
apart from the others which are more nearly on the same tech- 
nical level. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle say, "The school of Athens is simply 
the finest, the best balanced and most perfect arrangement of 
figures that was ever put together by the genius of the Italian 
revival." The subject has been generally considered as con- 
nected with Greek Philosophy and Science, and every person in 
the august assemblage has been named by painstaking interpre- 
ters, the two in the center of the composition being called Plato 
and Aristotle, leaders of two systems of philosophy. On the 
other hand one or two of the ablest critics prefer a Christian in- 
terpretation and believe that the artist intended to represent 
Paul by one of the central figures. 

Where is the scene laid ? Is the architecture Greek 
or Roman ? Is this as harmonious an arrangement of 
lines as La Disputa ? What gives credence to the con- 
jecture that Bramante furnished the architectural part of 
the composition ? Are the sculptural decorations bor- 
rowed from classic art or myth ? Are they disturbing 
elements ? Why ? 

Is the grouping stiff and formal? Cf. 3435^. Is it 
unconventional? Cf. 3439^. Is there an appropriate- 
ness in this ? Are these figures full of vigor, activity ? 


Is the composition laid out on intellectual rather than 
artistic lines ? How many centers of attention ? Is each 
subsidiary group complete in itself? Is it easily and 
gracefully united with the remainder of the composition ? 
Does the composition resolve itself into lines ? into 
masses ? Is there balance ? Had Raphael's genius and 
fancy free and untrammeled play in this work ? Is our 
interest in it due to its intellectual content, its treatment 
of technical problems, or its beauty ? 

No. 34461' — Prudence, Force and Moderation. 


Over the window on the wall opposite Parnassus, Under this 
fresco, on either side of the window, are the Emperor Justinian 
promulgating the Pandects and Pope Gregory VII. promulga- 
ting the Decretals. 

Why is Prudence double-faced ? Why do the faces 
represent difference of age and sex.^ Why does she 
gaze into a mirror and why the blazing torch back of 
her? Has Raphael successfully handled an inartistic 
theme ? 

What symbol is borne by the figure on the right ? Has 
the branch carried by the figure on the left a double sig- 
nificance ? Are other symbols attached to her ? Were 
all of these figures painted in the same spirit ? Which 
is largest in movement, more easy, more suave, more 
characteristic of Raphael's best ? Do the putti serve 
any purpose except that of beauty ? 

Are the principal figures interested in the same thing ? 
How do they illustrate the idea of justice ? Are they 
isolated ? How are they bound together ? Are the lines 
of the bridle repeated in the picture ? Is the composi- 
tion overloaded at any point ? 

No. 3449b — Judgment of Solomon. 
No. 3450b — Theology. (Medallion.) 

On the ceiling of the Camera, over each of the four large 
frescos, is a medallion containing an allegorical figure appro- 


priate to the subject of the picture beneath ; in the pendentives 
are four square panels, connecting the medallions; their posi- 
tion can be seen by referring to 13. 3449^ and 3450b are ex- 
amples of these smaller paintings. 

What does the background simulate ? Is it obtrusive ? 
Are the figures well relieved against it ? Are the gioups 
adapted to their frames ? Is the arrangement fettered, 
mechanical ? 

Is the story of Solomon's Judgment told simply and 
clearly? Is it pathetic — exciting? Is the executioner 
an example of correct anatomy, of strength ? (Cf. 
John in 3422^.) Is he sufficiently brutal to execute 
Solomon's order ? How does the living infant compare 
with Raphael's usual Christ-child ? 

Does Theology resemble the Madonna type ? Is she 
more intellectual ? More subtle ? Does she suggest the 
superhuman ? To what is she pointing ? 

Is the decorative character pronounced — /. e., would 
such a figure as Theology be found in a scene purport- 
ing to be from real life ? Why ? What is the secret of 
Raphael's power to produce a composition full of repose 
and grace while apparently violating the plainest rules 
regarding harmony of line ? 

From what sources are the motifs that form the orna- 
mental border derived ? Or are they original with 
Raphael ? What effect has this border on the pictures ? 

No. 3473b — The Miracle of Bolsena. 

Painted around the head of a window in the Camera d' Eli- 
odoro. The miracle referred to was the flowing of blood 
from the host at the moment of consecration, thus converting 
the officiating priest who had doubted the dogma affirming that 
it was the real body of Christ. Pope Urban IV. who was tradi- 
tionally present at the service (1286) is painted in the likeness 
of Julius II. This fresco was almost entirely executed by 
Raphael and is to-day splendid in the force and richness of its 

How has Raphael utilized the window frame in his 

composition ? How has he reconciled the straight lines 


with the arched top of the wall ? Is there a brilliant 
contrast of lights and darks unusual in his work? 

How is the spectator's interest fastened upon the 
altar ? Is there any division of interest among the par- 
ticipants in the scene ? Does Julius resemble a Doge 
rather than a Pope ? Is a beard usually worn by the 
Church dignitary ? Who are the figures on the right ? 
Is their curious dress a disturbing element, or does the 
picture gain by it ? 

Are there any incongruous incidents that mar the 
beauty and impressiveness of the picture ? How would 
you account for such ? How are the figures relieved and 
made prominent in all parts of the picture ? How does 
it compare with La Disputa? With Parnassus ? 

No. 3476^ — Deliverance of Peter : detail. 

Painted over a window. Within the picture (the larger part 
of which shows Peter in his prison cell, with guards) are three 
kinds of light — the crescent moon, a torch and the illumi- 
nation proceeding from the angel. These lights are reflected 
in the burnished armor of the guards who are in part sleeping, 
in part aroused by premonition of danger. 

Is the angel ideal in its beauty, its effulgence, its 
simple and noble drapery? Compare with the angels in 
3487^, 3522^. Is there the same purity, concentration 
of purpose, unconsciousness of mundane surroundings ? 
Is there suggestion of the earthly in this angel's strength 
and heavy proportions ? Is this an anomaly? Is some- 
thing similar noticeable in the Madonnas ? Is there a 
reason for it ? Is Peter well characterized ? Does he 
recall Masaccio ? Is the angel's foot a masterly piece of 
drawing ? Compare with the feet of infants in the 
Madonna pictures. Are both correct ? 

No. 15. Interior vievT- of Raphael's Loggia. 

(The plural form of the word, Loggie, is sometimes used by 
writers in this connection.) 
The Loggie are open galleries, overlooking the courts around 


which portions of the Vatican were built. The so-called 
Raphael's Loggia was designed by himself and surmounted 
Loggie built by Bramante. It communicates, through an ante- 
chamber, with the Stanze and also with the Chapel of Nicholas 
V. This Loggia is divided by arches into thirteen square com- 
partments, each with a vaulted ceiling on which are painted 
four Bible scenes ; in all fifty-two pictures, forty-eight from the 
Old Testament, four from the New, and collectively called 
Raphael's Bible. Raphael's work, however, consisted merely 
in planning and superintending the whole, the paintings being 
executed by Giulio Romano, Perino del Vaga and Francesco 
Penni. The pilasters, soffits and spandrels were profusely dec- 
orated with stucco ornament and arabesques by Giovanni da 

Since 1813 this Loggia, like that of the Farnesina, has been 
protected by glass from the weather. 

No. 3538^ — Abraham and the three Angels. 

Traditionally ascribed to Francesco Penni. 

How does the simplicity of the design compare with 
Raphael's other work ? Is the story successfully illus- 
trated ? Are there anachronisms ? What is the tradi- 
tional character of Abraham's dwelling-place ? Did the 
angels appear unto him in the dress of his own time ? 
How has Ghiberti represented this incident ? How has 
Raphael usually clothed his heavenly beings ? How is 
the movement of the draperies accounted for ? Are the 
forms spirituelle ? 

Is the execution of the work similar to Raphael's in 
the Stanze or the Farnesina ? Is the distribution of 
lights and darks decorative ? Is the mind pleased and 
stimulated as it contemplates the picture } Is it good 
for its place (high above the spectator) ? Would it serve 
as model for a modern wall painting of that subject } 

No. 3480b — The four Sibyls. 
No. 3481b — Angels : No. 3482b — Sibyls on the right. 

Details of 3480b . 

Arranged around the semi-circular top of the opening into a 
side chapel. Above this fresco is a course of prophets, painted 


by Timoteo Viti, who was Raphael's assistant in the work in 
this church. By some contemporary writers this is considered 
the finest of Raphael's frescos ; and Michelangelo, called in to 
settle a question of payment, set a high money value on it. 
The Sibyls, beginning on the left, are the Cumaean, Persian, 
Phrygian, Tiburtine. 

In what spirit are the Sibyls receiving the divine mes- 
sage ? Are they filled with the seriousness of their func- 
tion ? Are their thoughts turned toward those to whom 
the message is sent ? What is the source of their inspira- 
tion ? Has Raphael tried to express the sincerity, the 
inspired character of early religions ? Do the angels and 
cherubs add impressiveness and reality ? 

Is the adjustment of the figures ^to the space arbitrary 
and artificial ? Does it make one forget the shape of the 
space ? Is it more symmetrical than is usual with 
Raphael ? 

Does this show his love of beauty to be on the wane ? 
Are there any familiar types ? Is there a strength and 
freedom of movement more nearly allied to the masculine 
than is usual in his work ? How could such a develop- 
ment be accounted for ? 

No. 3485b — Triumph of Galatea. 

Raphael's frescos in the Villa Farnesina are in apartments 
that were once open to the air on one side, but now protected 
by glass. The story of Psyche covered the ceiling panels and 
spandrels of the Loggia with an allied decoration of little Loves 
in the lunettes. Galatea is painted on the wall of an adjoining 
apartment; its companion panel, Polyphemus, toward whom 
Galatea's gaze is directed, is the work of Sebastian del Piombo, 
executed before the commission was given to Raphael. The 
designs of these paintings are by the master ; the execution by 
his assistants. 

Did Raphael enter heartily into the joviality of the 
scene ? Is its sportive character expressed in the faces ? 
Was Raphael capable of representing laughter and mirth } 
Where is his daintiness apparent ? 


How does Galatea compare with his other feminine 
creations in beauty, graciousness, refinement ? Is the 
composition confused by the different directions in which 
the groups are moving ? Does she steady it by simplic- 
ity of mass in her flesh and robe ? Is attention fastened 
upon her by this means ? 

What are her emblems ? How is her craft propelled ? 
Are any entirely human forms represented ? Is the dual 
character suggested in the faces ? Are Cupids' wounds 
supposed to be as serious as these arrows must inflict ? 
How much would well chosen color add to the senti- 
ment and atmosphere of this picture ? 

No. 3516^ — Jupiter Consoling .Cupid : drawing for a fresco. 

Such a sketch as this, scarcely more than indicating the gen- 
eral character of the design, the master probably gave to his 
assistants. What opportunity was left for the introduction of the 
assistant's own individuality may be seen by studying this in 
connection with the finished painting of this series, 3515^ • 

Are the youthfulness of Cupid and the venerableness 
of Jupiter indicated in these heads ? Are they accurate 
drawings of studio models ? Does this seem to be the 
final form of the design (recall the shape of the span- 
drel)? Is the movement of the figures and draperies 
fully indicated ? Are the general outlines of the group 
harmonious ? Is there unity in the design ? What else 
is needed to finish it ? 

Which sentiment predominates, sportiveness or dignity ? 
Is humor a dangerous element in art ? 

General Questions on RaphaeFs Frescos, 

Is inventiveness always active ? Does it ever seem 
labored? Do the compositions ever seem hurried, excited, 
ill-considered ? Have they repose, variety, atmosphere ? 
Are they always in harmony with their achitectural envir- 
onment ? Do they open out the wall too much ? Is the 
eye led out into space and left there or brought back ? 


Is Raphael ever fettered by his subject ? In the appli- 
cation of his genius to illustration is there a serious loss 
of qualities that rendered Florentine work precious? 
Was he deficient in humor ? In what works is the hand 
of the pupil evident ? 




344 ^b 











Rome — Vatican. Interior of Camera della Seg- 

Rome — Vatican, Camera della Segnatura. Dis- 
pute of the Sacrament (Theology). 
Christ : detail of 3435b . 
Angels : detail of 3435b . 
Saints and Martjrs : detail of 3435b . 
Rome — Vatican, 'Camera della Segnatura. Par- 
nassus (Poetry). 
Apollo : detail of 3439b . 
Sappho : detail of 3439b . 
Rome — Vatican, Camera della Segnatura. School 
of Athens (Philosophy). 

Mathematicians ; detail of 3442b . 
Rome — Vatican, Camera della Segnatura. Pru- 
dence, Force and Moderation (Jurisprudence). 
Rome — Vatican, Camera della Segnatura, ceiling. 

Judgment of Solomon. 
Rome — Vatican, Camera della Segnatura, ceiling. 

Theology : medallion. 
Rome — Vatican, Camera d'Eliodoro. Miracle of 

Rome — Vatican , Camera d* Eliodoro. Deliverance 

of Peter. 
Rome— S. M. della Pace. The Four Sibyls. 
Angels : center, detail of 3480b . 
Sibyls : right side, detail of 3480b . 
Rome^ — Farnesina. Galatea. 

Rome — Farnesina. Psyche offering vase to Venus. 
Jupiter Consoling Cupid : drawing for 
Rome — Vatican. Interior view of Raphael's 

Rome — Vatican, Loggia. Abraham and the three 
Angels (attributed to Francesco Penni). 


Xe00on 4- 

Diversified Activitiea 

The feverish intensity of Raphael's life under 
Leo X.; variety of his occupations; popular 
demand for his works and insistence of princely 

Raphael as a portrait painter ; refined character- 
ization ; growth as a colorist ; lack of subtlety ; 
the popes — Julius II. and Leo X.; Donna 
Velata ; the Cardinal of the Prado : portraits in 
his frescos and altarpieces. 

His designs for architecture and sculpture ; ap- 
pointment as architect of St. Peter's; his ab- 
sorption in that work. 

Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel and their Car- 
toons ; their vicissitudes ; the part filled by their 
subjects in the large and consistent scheme of 
chapel decoration. 

His later altarpieces and easel paintings ; increas- 
ing elaborateness of composition ; emphasis on 
the dramatic. 

The interest and the mastery of Raphael's draw- 

Raphael's interest in archaeological research ; 
effect of study of antiques on his style and sub- 
jects ; his plans for the restoration of ancient 
Rome ; his remarkable executive capacity. 

The world's loss in the dissipation of Raphael's 
energy in these manifold channels ; the true 
greatness of his genius. 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 3454b — Portrait of Pope Julius n. 

Julius II. of the Delia Rovere family was one of the most 
able and energetic of the Popes. Ambitious to extend and up- 


build the dominion of the church, his pontificate, from 1503 to 
1 5 13 was remarlcabte for its activity in war and diplomacy and 
for its liberal patronage of art and learning. Raphael was in 
his service from 1508. 

Whether the picture in the Pitt! is the original portrait is a 
question. Replicas or copies exist in the Uffizi and the National 
Gallery, London. The original was placed in a chapel in S. M. 
del Popolo. 

Is this an idealized face ? Does it suggest a warlike 
disposition ? An indomitable will, boundless ambition, 
insatiable activity, pride of position ? Does he look like 
a man of rugged honesty? Is craftiness expressed ? Is 
the benignant character of the office indicated by the 
Italian word " Papa '' (Pope) suggested ? 

Are there traces of weariness, diminished strength, of 
burned out fires ? Are the frame and limbs instinct with 
life, with pulsating vigor, or are they pulseless, nerveless ? 
Is there a subtle sense of relaxation ? Is it for such a 
reason a remarkable presentation of advanced age ? Are 
other marks of age wanting that one would naturally 
expect to find ? Are hands of this character possible 
beyond the prime of life ? 

Is there a hint of disappointment, of humiliation ? 
Would Mantegna or Leonardo have treated the subject 
in this way ? 

No. 3455b — . Vision of Ezekiel. 

On wood, i8j^ X 13)^ inches. 

Design by Raphael; believed to have been executed by a 
pupil — probably Giulio Romano — with finishing touches by 
the master. 

How literally has Raphael interpreted the passage 
Ezekiel i : 4-14? Is it a painter's subject ? What diffi- 
culties does it present ? Do the figures move by their 
own volition or are they carried along .-^ Is there a sense 
of irresistible power } 

Is the conception dignified, awe inspiring ? Would 

it be equally so if the symbols were treated less realisti- 


cally ? Does the Almighty resemble Jupiter in 3516^? 
Is this conception of the Supreme Deity original with 
Raphael or is it in any sense an imitation of the antique ? 
Do the putti add to the interest or the significance of 
the composition? Can the same be said of the back- 
ground of cherubs ? Which is most stimulating to the 
imagination ? 

Is the group well bound together or is its composition 
loose ? What effect on the solidity of the mass has the 
heavy shadow ? Is the eye attracted toward the central 
figure ? 

Is there any peculiarity about the clouds ? Have they 
depth ? Are they luminous ? What is seen below them ? 

No. 3489^ — Portrait of a Cardinal. 

It is not known who is the original of this painting; it long 
bore the name of Cardinal Bibiena ; it has Been called the Car- 
dinal of Pavia ; and the suggestion has been made that it was 
Cardinal Cib6, one of the large number of Cardinals created by 
Leo X. This and the portrait of Leo X. are among the most 
brilliant pieces of color in Raphael's work. 

Does this face contain suggestions of a true monastic 
life ? Of vigils and fastings ? Of profound reflection ? 
Is it spiritual ? Strong ? Ambitious ? Does the pose of 
hand and arm also offer a character suggestion ? Would 
this man successfully conduct an army ? 

Cf. 3015^*, 2036^, 1709^. Which face is most labori- 
ously modeled ? In which are sensitiveness and delicacy 
most manifest ? Cf. 1999**. Which expresses the most 
power ? Which reveals the richer, deeper religious char- 
acter ? 

Has Raphael been especially attracted by the artistic 
aspect of his subject ? By details and textures ? 

No. 3494b _ St. CeciUa. 

Painted for the chapel of St. Cecilia, St. Giovanni in Monte, 
Bologna, at the instance of Cardinal Pucci. This prelate was un- 
able to properly intone a mass because of a defective musical ear. 
Through the intercession of the saint the defect was remedied. 


The musical instruments were painted by Giovanni da Udine. 
The picture was carried to Paris by the French in 1796; while 
there it was transferred to canvas and grievously restored. It 
was returned to Bologna in 181 5. The attendant saints are 

Mary Magdalen, John Evangelist, Paul and Augustine. 


Into what parts is the picture divided? Are they bound 
together in any way? What advantage is there in this ? 

Interpret the attitudes and gestures of the five saints. 
Have they a common interest ? Are their faces full of 
meaning ? Of spiritual beauty ? Where is the Magdalen 
looking ? Does this occur in other of Raphael's pictures? 

Are the figures well proportioned to each other ? Are 
they agreeably grouped ? Do the heads form a line in 
harmony with any other lines of the picture ? Cf. 3435**, 
3408^ . What effect has this on the picture ? 

Why are the musical instruments on the ground ? Do 
they add to the beauty, the thought of the picture ? 

On what does the fame of this painting rest ? 

No. 3497b — Lo Spasiino di Sicilia. 

Transferred to canvas from wood. 

This picture of Christ on the road to Calvary was painted for 
Santa Maria dello Spasimo of Palermo. It was ordered by in- 
fluential persons and although the under painting may have been 
by assistants the over painting was entirely by Raphael. 

Philip IV. of Spain acquired the painting in 1663, when it 
received the name by which it is now known. It was in Paris 
from 1813 to 1822. It has been cleaned and restored and its 
original color greatly changed in quality. 

Is this conceived in the large spirit of Raphael's 
frescos ? Is it disturbed in action ? Would such a scene 
in reality compose itself on quiet lines ? Are there more 
persons than are necessary to tell the story? 

Is the pathos deep, sincere ? Are there any evidences 
of brutality? Of complete indifference to Christ's 
suffering ? 

Is the central thought made prominent ? Is it brought 


out by lighting, by the interest of all about, by its own 
strong treatment of emotion ? 

Interpret the attitude and expression of Christ. Does 
this indicate a profound sympathy with him on the part 
of Raphael? Is more expressed than is related in 
Scripture ? 

Are Raphael's utmost nobility and beauty present in 
the picture ? Where else have you seen so ideal a Christ 
type ? Is the picture conceived without anachronisms ? 

Are the mechanics of the picture well handled ? How 
is balance secured ? Is light concentrated or scattered ? 
Does the distance quiet the uneasy elements in the fore- 
ground ? Are any of the faces and figures familiar ? 
Does Raphael succeed best in a complicated scene full 
of figures and showing powerful emotion ? 

Na 3500t> — Christ's Charge to Peter. 

No. 3501i> — The Miraculous Draught of Fishes. 

The Tapestries of the Sistine Chapel, for which Raphael's 
cartoons were designed, were woven in Brussels. There the 
cartoons were cut into strips for the convenience of the weavers 
and remained until they were purchased by Charles I. of Eng- 
land, in accordance with the advice of Rubens. Three of the 
original ten cartoons were lost; the remaining seven are now in 
the South Kensington Museum. 

Is there any falling off in power and beauty from Raph- 
aePs characteristic work? Compare 3500** with 1537^, 
1538^. Is the resemblance slight? Is it accidental? 
In what does the later artist excel ? Is the comparison 
an unfortunate one for Masaccio ? Compare dates and 

Which is the more realistic, 3500^ or 3501^ ? Which 
best interprets the Bible story ? Are there competing 
interests in either ? What technical differences in the 
two designs ? Why are the birds and the sheep intro- 
duced ? Are they equally satisfactory ? 

Was Raphael's use of the halo constant ? Were there 


special reasons for its use here ? Are principles of 
physics disregarded in either ? Is Raphael's masterly 
drawing everywhere in evidence ? Do the landscape 
backgrounds enrich the compositions ? Do they attract 
attention from the figures ? 

Are these designs appropriate for a woven material ? 
Do the same principles apply to tapestry as to other 
wall decorations ? 

No. 3526^ — Donna Velata. 

(Veiled Lady.) 
The identity of this portrait is a mystery. Some critics deny 
it to Raphael, but the geater number of authoritative writers 
attribute it to him without question. Much interesting conjec- 
ture is attached to the original and it is suggested that she is the 
fair one to whom his small number of love sonnets were 

Has this the characteristics of a long studied, carefully 
elaborated portrait } Does it owe its beauty to the phy- 
sical aspect or to the character suggestion ? Is it an intel- 
lectual face } Spiritual ? Does it exemplify Raphael's 
art as Mona Lisa does Leonardo's ? Cf. 3414^. Which 
is the higher type ? Why ? 

Does this face occur in any of Raphael's Madonna 
pictures ? Does it naturally lend itself to such use 

Is the action of the hand natural ? Is it the same 

hand that appears in the master's earlier Madonnas? 

Does the elaborateness of the dress help or hinder the 

study of the face ? How does it affect the picture as a 

whole ? 

No. 3527b _ Portrait of Pope Leo X. 

This pontiff was a son of Lorenze de Medici, the Magnificent. 
Lover of pleasure and accustomed to luxury he was a distin- 
guished patron of art and a humanist. During his nine years* 
pontificate, his court was disgraced by unseemly revels. His 
expenditures were without parallel, and his expedients to fill his 
depleted treasury from church revenues precipitated the Luth- 
eran Reformation. 


This portrait, painted with extreme finish, rich in color, was 
an heirloom in the Medici family. An admirable copy by 
Andrea del Sarto is in Naples. The Cardinals are De' Rossi, 
and Giulio de* Medici, later Clement VII. 

Do the luxurious accessories seem naturally a part of 
the man ? Does his face betoken conscious power and 
other high qualities that belong to one who fills a position 
of great trust and responsibility.^ Compare with the 
Medici portraits in Botticelli's picture, 1628^. Can 
family resemblances be distinguished ? Are all marked 
by an air of distinction I Has either artist attempted 
flattery.? In which is the painter's art most evident? 
In what does it consist ? 

Do his hands indicate nervous vigor ? Do Raphael's 
hands in general express that ? What is the case with 
the hands of Cardinal De ' Rossi ? Cf. also 3454^. 

Are the Cardinals treated as necessary to the picture or 
as background incidents ? How has the Pope been 
brought into prominence ? Has there been a disposition 
to conceal unpleasant facts ? Has the study of textures, 
throughout the picture, received more attention than 
usual from Raphael .'* Is he revealed as a skilful painter 
of still-life ? As a ruthless portrayer of character ? 

No. 35451) — The Transfiguration. 

No. 3546b — Head of Christ : detail of 3545^ . 

On wood. 

This painting, upon which Raphael was at work at the time of 
his death, was planned in competition with Sebastian del Piom- 
bo's Raising of Lazarus. (No. 3913b .) Both were ordered by 
Cardinal Giulio de* Medici, the Transfiguration for the city of 
Sarbonne, the other for San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. After 
Raphael's deeply lamented death, the destination of the pictures 
was changed, and the Transfiguration remained in San Pietro 
until 1757. The lower part of the picture was finished by Giulio 
Romano. Its shadows have darkened with time. The number 
of drawings for this painting that exist bear evidence to the 
great artist's conscientious preparation for his pictures through- 
out his career. 


What incidents are represented ? What connection 
have they ? Is there the sense of two pictures ? Do the 
groups blend into one scene, one thought ? 

Are the three varieties of movement clearly contrasted? 
Does the solidity of the foreground group impart light- 
ness, air, unsubstantiality to the vision ? 

Are attitudes and expressions full of meaning ? Could 
the same meaning have been conveyed with less move- 
ment ? Is the same tendency to unquiet movement 
noticeable in this and in 3497^ ? Is there a similar 
change in other paintings by Raphael during his late 
Roman period ? Is it such a change as might be ex- 
pected ? Is the picture lighted from a single source ? Is 
it treated in the same way in the two parts ? 

Who are represented in the upper group ? Are the 
figures descending, ascending, or poised in a stationary 
position ? What accessories usually introduced by artists 
at this period are wanting here ? Is the face of Christ 
one of beauty, exaltation, grandeur ? 

What noteworthy figures in the lower group ? Inter- 
pret its meaning. Are the two kneeling figures on the 
mount necessary to the composition ? (Note : they are 
local saints.) What element of sentiment is added by 
the distant landscape and sky ? 

3454b . . . Florence — Pitti. Portrait of Pope Julius II. 

3455^ • • • Florence — Pitti. Vision cf Ezekiel. 

3489b . . . Madrid — Prado. Portrait of a Cardinal. 

3494b . . . Bologna — Gallery. St. Cecilia. 

3497b . . . Madrid — Prado. Christ bearing his Cros^ (Lo 

Spasimo di Sicilia). 
3500b . . . London — South Kensington Museum. Christ's 

Charge to Peter : Cartoon for Tapestry. 
3501b , . . London — South Kensington, Museum. The 

Miraculous Draught of Fishes : Cartoon for 

3526b . . . Florence — Pitti. Donna Velata. 


3537^ • • • Florence — Pitti. Portrait of Pope Leo X. 
3545^ • • • Rome — Vatican, Picture Gallery. The Transfig- 
3546b . . . Head of Christ : detail of 3545 ^ . 


The school founded by Raphael ; lack of the origi- 
nal traits or innovations that constitute a true 
School of painting ; enormous amount of work 
accomplished by Raphael and his scholars. 

Compare Raphael's influence with that of Leo- 
nardo dk Vinci; disturbing elements in the 
Papal capital ; the pillage of Rome ; after 
history of his scholars. 

GIULIO ROMANO. 14927-1546. 

His individuality ; blending of the influence of 
Raphael and of Michael Angelo in his later 
work ; ready adoption of Pagan themes and 

Early easel pictures ; altarpieces in Genoa ; im- 
portant work in Mantua as architect and painter 
— Palazzo del T ; his scholars. 

CESCO PENNI (H Fattore). 1488-1528; PERINO DEL 
VAGA. 1500-1547. 

The special work and characteristics of each. 

ANDREA SABBATINI (Andrea da Salerno). 14807-1530. 

A painter of southern Italy associated with Cesare 
da Sesto and influenced by Raphael. 


One of Francia's School who became an imita- 
tor of Raphael. 


Cooperation with Giulio Romano in Mantua; 
residence in France under Francis I. and suc- 


ceeding monarchs ; honors and offices there ; 
artistic traits. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Roman collectors and collections of antiquities in 

the early sixteenth century. 
(Miintz, Raphael, ch. XVIII. ; Perkins, iii, note; 

Symonds. Revival of Learning, 429-439,) 

Tapestries ; influence on Tapestry design of 

Raphael and his school. 
Engraving previous to the seventeenth century ; 

Marc Antonio Raimondi, the foremost Italian 


Questions on Special Pictures, 


No. 35501^ — Dance of ApoUo and the Muses 

Small panel : figures in color on gilded background. 

Are lightness, grace, motion well expressed ? Cf. 
2067^. What advance in beauty, in elegance, in reality? 
Which is treated with the most freedom ? In which the 
most attention to anatomical study ? 

Is the movement slow and stately, or is it unrestrained 
and boisterous ? 

Is the spirit of the Greek myth preserved? Do the 
figures suggest classic models ? Is the costume purely 
Greek ? Why do some of the Muses wear buskins ? 

No. 3552b _ Madonna della Catina. 

(The name, translated, is basin.) 
Is the arrangement of the group natural and pleasing ? 
Is Elizabeth needed, from an artistic point of view, to 
complete the composition ? Do four figures offer special 
difficulties to the designer ? Are the women in sympathy 
with the sportiveness of the children ? Are faces and 
forms handled with delicacy ? Are there defects in 
drawing or modeling ? Are these types seen elsewhere ? 


Is the scene deeply spiritual ? What reminds us that 
it is a Holy family ? Compare with Raphael in this re- 
spect, and with fifteenth century painters. 

No. 3560b — Detail of Vault, Sala del Qiganti. 

(Hall of the Giants.) 

The ceiling of this apartment was curved in every part to avoid 
angles. The subject of the decoration is a Greek myth, the 
Fall of the Giants, who are overthrown by rocks and falling 
buildings aiding the assault of the Olympian hosts. The figures 
of the Giants are fourteen feet in height. 

What emotions are here expressed ? Why are the 
mouths open ? Does the subject admit of more violence ? 
Could these emotions have been expressed with less ? Is 
there intentional restraint on the part of the artist? 
What motive would account for restraint ? Is this treat- 
ment artistic ? 

Is any subject including figures of colossal size suitable 
for the decoration of a small room ? W^hy ? Is this 
subject suitable for a ceiling ? Why? Is this an assem- 
blage of aerial or material forms ? Do the clouds suggest 
ether or some weightier substance ? 

t No. 3565 b — Polyphemus. 

One room of the pleasure palace of the Duke of Mantua was 
decorated by Giulio with extracts from the story of Psyche and 
other classic myths upon which he had worked as Raphael's 
assistant in the Villa Farnesina. Note the character of his 
original work unrestrained by RaphaeFs taste. 

What is the story alluded to in this decoration ? What 
is the meaning of the two figures introduced at the right ? 
Where are they seated ? Are these figures felicitous in 
any artistic sense ? 

What physical characteristics are represented in Poly- 
phemus? Are 'they obtrusive ? Has the artist success- 
fully adapted the myth to pictorial treatment ? Is the 
body powerfully and correctly modeled ? Is the fore- 


shortening so managed that the illusion of a real figure 
in that position is perfect ? Is the form heavy, coarse ? 
Would Raphael have represented it without grace or 
delicacy ? Is the myth susceptible of either interpreta- 
tion ? 

No. 3580b — Madonna, Child and St. John. 

Cf. 3552**, 3499^, 3423^, 34io^, 3060* > 3020^. What 
differences, what resemblances in type and in character ? 
Which are most religious in sentiment ? Does this seem 
to be early or late work ? Is there anything of the prim- 
itive about it ? Is it decadent art ? Explain. 

Study Madonna's face. In what artists do the down- 
cast eyes, the small mouth, upward curving lines of mouth 
and eyes, the perfect oval occur ? What traces of Raph- 
aelesque influence, of the feeling of Umbrian and Lom- 
bard schools ? 

No. 3600b — Madonna and 8aint& 

Are these new types of children ? Have their attitudes 
a religious significance ? Are they infantile ? Does the 
picture lack strength ? Is there a feeling pf reality in the 
forms, in sentiment ? Is there correct drawing ? Is the 
hair studied from nature.'^ Explain Joseph's attitude. 
Is Raphael's influence traceable in the interweaving of 
the group ? Is it in other respects ? 

No. 3610l> — Archers : allegory. 

Fresco removed from the so-called Villa Raphael. A sketch 
attributed to Raphael is in the Brera : but the original sugges- 
tion probably came from Michelangelo's drawing after Lucian, 
who likens the words of philosophers to arrows launched by 
various archers at the mark — the heart of man. 

Is the object that serves as a target a portrait or the 
personification of an abstract idea ? Is Lucian's thought 


adapted to illustration ? Has this artist handled it suc- 
cessfully ? Or has it merely furnished a pretext for an 
anatomical study and dexterity in drawing ? As an 
exercise in drawing does it command admiration ? As 
an exercise in composition is it ingenious, satisfactory ? 
Have the prostrate figures an allegorical meaning as well 
as an artistic purpose ? Are the weapons arranged with 
a fine decorative sense ? Is this latter motive strained ? 

No. 3611b — Justice. 

An allegorical figure, painted in oil, at one side of the Battle 
of Constantine. 

In what is Justice absorbed ? Is this a more than 
usually successful rendering of an allegorical theme? 
Is there strength, charm, freedom from consciousness ? 
What other qualities that contribute to the success ? 

Why is the ostrich introduced ? Is it a study from 
nature ? 

If this work and 3610^ are original designs of Perino, 
what rank does he deserve ? If he has elaborated these 
from the idea of another what high artistic qualities do 
they prove him to have possessed ? 

No. 3620^ — The Concert. 

What individual methods of treatment are noticeable 
in the drawing of heads and hands ? Do these peculiari- 
ties point toward the perfection of art ? What is the in- 
tellectual content of the picture ? What is the artist 
interested in ? What allies this with the work of Raph- 
ael's school ? 

Analyze the attractiveness of the picture. Is it calcu- 
lated to exert a strong influence on a class of pupils ? Is 
there any reason to deprecate such influence ? 



3550^ • • • Florence — Pitti. Dance of Apollo and the Muses. 

3552l> . , . Dresden — Gallery. Madonna della Catina. 

356ol> , , , Mantua — Palazzo del T, Sala del Giganti : detail 

of Vault. 

3565'' . . . Mantua — Palazzo del T, Sala di Psiche. Poly- 


3580^ . . . Naples — National Museum. Madonna, Child and 

St. John. 


3600^ . . . Rome — Colonna. Madonna and Saints. 


36iot> , . . Rome — Borghese. Archers. 

361 it> . . . Rome — Vatican, Sala di Costantino. Justice. 

Berenson Central Italian Painters. 1 12-129. 

Berenson Study and Criticism of Italian Art. v. II. 

1-23? 39-48. 

Bigot Raphael and the Villa Farnesina. 

Blanc Grammar of Painting and Engraving. 

(Also the French edition, *' Grammaire des 

Arts du dessin," which may be found in 

libraries that do not possess the English 


Blashfield Italian Cities, v. II. 149-2 11. 

Cartwright .... Early work of Raphael. 
Cartwright .... Raphael in Rome. 

Chapin Masters and Masterpieces of Engraving. 

Clement Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci and 

Raphael. 222-301 ; 357-374. 
Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Raphael, his life and works. 
Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. II. 106-107. (Sab- 

D'Anvers .... Raphael. 
D'Aubigne .... History of the Reformation, v. I. 1 36-131. 


Delaborde .... Engraving: its origin, processes and history. 

Chapters i, 3 and 4. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens : Raffael. 

Eastlake Five Great Painters : Raphael. 

Fisher Drawings and Studies of Raffaelle Sanzio in 

the University Galleries, Oxford. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 253-264. 

Grimm Life of Raphael. 

Grimm Michael Angelo. v. I. 350-374. v. II. 192- 

197; 236-265. 

Grimm Zehn Essays : Rafael und Michelangelo. 

Gruyer Les Fresques de Raphael au Vatican. 

Gruyer Les Vierges de Raphael. 

Gruyer Raphael, peintre de Portraits. 

Harland Printing arts. 

Heaton History of Painting. 103-133; 137. 

Jameson Legends of the Madonna : Introduction. 

Jameson Sacred and Legendary Art. 

Jarves Art Studies. 441-466. 

Kdroly Raphael's Madonnas. 

Knackfuss .... Raphael. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 413-414; 463-543. 

Masters in Art .. 1900, December : Raphael. 

Morelli Italian Painters. v. I. 37-59; 137-151 ; 

316-323; v. II. 108-114; 283-384. 
Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 80-86 ; 

2 IO-2 I 3 ; 270-284 ; 285-340. 

Miintz A Short History of Tapestry. 

Muntz L' Aged* Or. 739-768. 

Miintz ..*.... La Tapisserie. 

Miintz Les Tapisseries de Raphael au Vatican. 

Miintz Raphael, archeologue et historien. 

Miintz Raphael, life and works. 

Paget Juvenilia, v. I ; Article, apoUo the Fiddler. 

Passavant .... Raphael of Urbino and his father. 

Pater Raphael : in Miscellaneous Essays. 

Pater Story of Cupid and Psyche. 

Perkins Raphael and Michelangelo. 

Phillipps Frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. Appendix. 

Potter The Art of the Vatican. Chapters 5, 6 and 7. 

Rea Tuscan Artists. 77-84; 130-132. 

Roscoe Life and Pontificate of Leo the Tenth. 


Schmarso'w . . . Raphael and Pinturicchio in Siena. 

Springer Rafael und Michelangelo. 

Stillman Old Italian Masters. 225-232. 

Strachey Raphael. 

Symonds Age of Despots. 435-440. 

Symonds .... Fine Arts. 328-339. 

Symonds .... Revival of Learning. 392-439. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 524- 

Woodberry .... History of Wood Engraving. 

Woodbury .... Luther and Annals of the Reformation. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 120-233. 


American Architect, 1892. v. 62, 19. 

Art Journal, 1892. v. 44, 335-336. 1901 ; v. 53, 284-286. 

Fortnightly Review, 1892. v. 58, 458-469. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1873. v. 32, 336-352. 1875; v. 37, 

462-466. 1880; V. 47, 307-319. 1882; v. 50, 385-401; 

1889; V. 64,383-404. 
Littell's Living Age, 1892. v. 195,643-651. 
Magazine of Art, 1881. v. 4,6-9. 1885; v. 8, 136-140; v. 9, 

McClure's Magazine, 1902. v. 18, 309-322. 

Nineteenth Century, v. 20. 343 — . 


®ur /acuity for 1904. 

The following persons have been already engaged as leaders 
and specialists for our Travel Classes in Europe for the summer 
of 1904. The number will be considerably increased later. 

H. H. POWERS, Ph. D., formerly of Cornell and Stanford 
Universities, President of the Bureau and Director of the Art 
Study and Lecture Department in Boston and vicinity. 

Department of Ancient and Retiatssance Art. 

H. p. 'WILLARD, A. B., Vice-President of the Bureau and 
Director of Art Study and Lecture Department in Berlin and 

Department of Art History. 

C. Ii. BABCOCK, Ph. D., Department of Latin and Roman 
Archaeology, Cornell University. 

Department of Roman Archceology and Art. 

C. B. MARTIN, A. M., Professor of Greek and Greek Arch- 
aeology in Oberlin College. 

Department of Greek Archaeology and Art. 

C. C. UiSYL, A. B., Professor of Art in North East Manual 
Training School, Philadelphia. 

Department of German History^ Literature and Art. 

O. P. PAIRFIKLD, A. B., Professor of Latin, Alfred U 

Department of Roman Archceology and Art. 

"W. A. PRATER, A. B., Representative of the Bureau in 
Paris, holder of the Bureau Fellowship for 1903-4. 
Department of History. 

"W. MOSHER, A. B., formerly of Oberlin College. Now 
pursuing graduate studies in the University of Berlin. 
Department of History. 


H Sample Xccturc Courec* 

Perhaps the most successful lecture course on art ever 
given in an Eastern City. 

I. Roman and Mediaeval Florence : the War of the Factions, 
Guelf and Ghibelline. The Revival of Art : Niccola Pisano and 
Cimabue. Imitation and Assimilation of Ancient Art. 

II. Democratic Florence : The Rule of the Guilds. Giotto, 
the Commoner in Art, his relation to Medievalism, his relation 
to the Renaissance. A Century of the Giotto Tradition. 

III. Plutocratic Florence : The Rise of the New Aristocracy 
and Struggle for Supremacy. Prospect and Retrospect in Art. 
Masaccio and Fra Angelico. 

IV. Medicean Supremacy : Cosimo, Pater Patriae. Medicean 
Patronage of Art : Ghiberti and Donatello. 

V. Neo-Paganism and Christianity. The Humanists and 
their Influence on Art. Fra Lippo Lippi, Filippino Lippi, 
Ghirlandajo, Botticelli's early Work. 

VI. Lorenzo and Savonarola : The Eternal Conflict and its 
Outcome. Savonarola's Influence upon Art. Botticelli, Fra 
Bartolommeo, Michelangelo's Youth. 

VII. Florence and Milan. The Court of Ludovico. Leo- 
nardo : Artist, Scientist, Mechanician and Man of the World. 

VIII. Florence and her Lesser Neighbors : Her Debt tq their 
Influence. Siena, the early Rival ; Bologna and San Petronio ; 
Art in Umbria. 

IX. Florence and Umrbia : Their Culture Alliance. Perugino 
and Raphael : Their Gift and their debt to Florence. 

X. After Savonarola : Conditions in Florence and Rome. 
Michelangelo's early Work. 

XI. The Zenith of the Papacy : Rome under Julius II. and 
Leo X. The Sistine Ceiling. 

XII. The Passing of Florence : The Restoration of the 
Little Medici. Michelangelo's Last Works ; The Last Judg- 
ment, the Tombs of the Medici, the Descent from the Cross. 
The Closing of the Book. 



Number Twelve. 

First of all, it is to be noted that it is traditional and 
of very early origin. Raphael has not been rescued 
from undeserved oblivion by the tardy justice of pos- 
terity as have Rembrandt and Velasquez. He reaped to 
the full the benefits of popular favor during his lifetime. 
If we examine the records of the period we encounter, 
the ecstasies and fulsome praises with which we are 
familiar, expressed in a still more extravagant manner. 
The men who vented upon the great Michelangelo all 
their spleen and hatred, scarcely according him the 
barest justice, vied with one another in honoring Raphael, 
and this, too, though Michelangelo's superiority was uni- 
formly recognized. The meaning of this favoritism is 
clear. Raphael had personal charm. Amid the rancors 
and intrigues of a troubled age he bore a charmed life. 
The hates and envies of his time he neither shared nor 
evoked. He was no paragon of altruism or virtue — 
that is seldom a guarantee of popularity — but he was 
the incarnation of serenity and tact. In him nothing 
seems excessive, unbalanced, disfiguring. Balance and 
poise which no turmoil disturbs, a nature equally free 
from predatory selfishness and belligerent virtue, he 
lived like the lilies of the field exhaling perfume. In all 
ages such natures have been beloved but never more 
than in the person of Raphael. And this love of the 
man, prejudging all that he did, laid the foundation of 
the Raphael cult whose force is not yet spent. In our 
estimate of the man the testimony of this age-long wor- 
ship is not to be neglected ; in our estimate of his art it 
is to be carefully guarded against. 

As we trace the development of Raphael's art we are 
struck with his remarkable power of assimilation. All 
the elements of his art seem to have been, learned, and 
in turn all the elements of contemporary art he seems to 
have been capable of learning. Thus in his early man- 
ner the resemblance to Perugino is so strong that the 

novice easily confounds the two. Not only the excel- 
lences but even the mannerisms of the Umbrian master 
are repeated by the pupil with almost plagiaristic exact- 
ness. Compare the little pursemouthed maiden who 
faces us in the Sposalizio with Perugino's Madonna in 
No. 1896^ . There is a servile copying here which finds no 
parallel in the early work of Michelangelo or of almost 
any other great master. Again the exquisite landscape 
background of the Madonna del Prato recalls the 
glimpses seen through the windows in Leonardo's Last 
Supper and reminds us that just then Raphael was under 
the great painter's influence in Florence. Still more 
palpable is the imitation of Fra Bartolommeo's manner 
in the Madonna of the Baldaquin, while the Vision of 
Ezekiel, recalling faintly the grandiose effects of Michel- 
angelo, remind us that the limit of assimilation has 
been reached. More striking still, though less personal, 
is the influence of the Venetian school in his later work 
and his labored acquisition of the dramatic style so 
much in favor in his day and so little consonant with 
his nature. The degree of assimilation varies greatly 
according to the nature of the task undertaken and the 
seriousness of the effort, but the process is uninterrupted. 
The inclination to learn from others, to add their skill 
and their secrets to his own, this eclectic tendency seems 
to have been fundamental in his nature. It is neither 
an excellence nor a defect. The assimilative mind may 
be very great, as in Tennyson or Raphael, while its coun- 
terpart, the creative mind, may be eccentric and feeble 
as in Signorelli or Piero di Cosimo. Raphael was great, 
but his power consisted rather in the power to assimilate 
than in the power to create. 

* And yet there is always a personal contribution in his 
most pronounced assimilations. In the Sposalizio above 
referred to, the maiden facing us is a Perugino creation 
of the lesser type, neither better nor worse^ but the 


beautiful maid in the foreground, whose golden hair 
streams over her shoulder, is something more. It is 
hard to define the difference, but it is unmistakable. 
Perugino is refined, sensitive, sincere, but here is a sun- 
nier beauty, a freer poise, an ease and a grace that 
Perugino never knew. It is a Perugino type, if you will, 
but a Perugino perfected and transfigured. Again in 
the Madonnas supposed to reflect Leonardo's influence 
there is no servile copying. We miss the enigmatical 
and baffling smile, the subtle gaze, something too of the 
exquisite drawing and modeling of the great Florentine, 
but there are compensations. The placid calm of the 
Madonna of the Meadow or of the Goldfinch is as beau- 
tiful as the subtle vivacity of Leonardo and better suited 
to our more serious moods. The painter has remained 
true to himself while assimilating the lesson of the great 
teacher. Even in the Vision of Ezekiel, that spiritual 
symbol of the cyclone, Raphael has tempered the awful 
grandeur of Michelangelo by his spirit of inner calm, 
has even added two smiling cherubs whose quiet happi- 
ness contrasts strangely with the theme as with the won- 
dering beings which Michelangelo makes ministering 
spirits to the most High. 

It behooves us to take more careful note of this per- 
sonal element in Raphael's art. The Madonna of the 
Goldfinch will, perhaps, best serve our purpose, and this 
too best in the simple detail of the Madonna's face. 
What does it tell us ? 

First of all, it tells us that Raphael is not a Christian 
painter. The Madonna, to be sure, is a Christian theme, 
but one which easily passes into the merely human. 
Starting with the mother of Jesus the Christian artist 
began to idealize in the line of the Christian sentiments 
and the Christian struggle. The travail of the race in 
the interest of soul enlargement, the longing and the 
pain of it, these lent themselves admirably to expression 


in the face of woman and made the Madonna the su- 
preme theme in Christian art. 

Of all this Raphael's madonnas know nothing. There 
is no travail, no pain, no anguish patiently borne for a 
great end. Try and associate with this exquisite face 
such sentiments as conviction of sin, or sorrow for a 
world or sympathy for the afflicted. Think of her as 
bowed in agony at the cross or prostrate in grief before 
the body of her son. Such thoughts are impossible, are 
sacrilege even. The creature before us is one who can 
not, nay, one who should not and must not, be marred by 
these experiences. She is perfect with another kind of 
perfection. Placid as an unruffled lake, all is balanced, 
rounded and complete. Her range of thought and pur- 
pose may not be the greatest but they are perfect in 
themselves. Throughout her being is harmony, harmony 
which it were sin to disturb even^ in the interest of en- 
largement and regeneration. 

Raphael is not spiritual as we commonly use the term. 
The capacity for the deeper sympathies and profounder 
emotions is not in his creations. They long for nothing 
because they need nothing, because all change would be 
disfigurement. In lieu of spirituality, which in its in- 
tenser forms is incompatible with the temper of Raphael, 
his work is characterized unfailingly by a quality often 
confounded with spirituality. That quality is refinement. 
They suggest the possibilities, not of spiritual discipline, 
but of sensuous development in the direction of delicacy 
and good taste. Call this pagan if you will, but if so 
you pay to paganism an undeserved compliment. Call 
it rather human as embodying a never-dying ideal. 
Shall we know no end of travail ? Does the flesh exist 
but to be mortified ? Does war never end in peace ? 
Does not every race look forward to a time when appe- 
' tites may be satisfied because they are healthy and 
pleasure shall cease to be sin ? Do we not dream of a 


time when the flesh shall be reconciled with the spirit? 
Perhaps all this may never be, but it is none the less the 
most imperishable of our ideals. It seems derogatory 
to Raphael to say that he knows not the deeper spiritual 
emotions, the struggle of the soul against the world, the 
flesh and the devil. It seems as if he had fallen short 
of the world *s supreme experiences, had missed its deep- 
est meaning. Has he fallen short, or has he tran- 
scended ? Is the ineffable harmony of this exquisite 
being a reminiscence of humanity's childhood or a fore- 
taste of its ultimate triumph? 

It will be apparent from the foregoing how little suited 
was Raphael to the portrayal of stirring dramatic themes 
or the coordination of complex elements in grandiose 
effects. The true meaning and charm of his art are not 
even to be found in so simple a group as those already 
referred to, but is rather to be sought in the perfect har- 
monies of a single figure or face. But the age would not 
have it so. The day of simple and modest art was past. 
Signorelli and Ghirlandajo had set the example of large 
and ambitious compositions and Michelangelo, that 
Titan among artists, was claiming the domain of art for 
the terrible and the sublime. Unlike Michelangelo, 
Raphael never stemmed the tide. The new demand was 
a new opportunity to assimilate and learn. Hence we 
have the vast compositions of the Stanze in lieu of the 
serenely simple creations of his earlier years. There 
was gain and loss in the change. Much of the ineffable 
Raphael remains in the supernal beauty of the faces in 
the Disputa and the Parnassus. A new power, too, is 
manifest in the free and graceful grouping of the numer- 
ous figures in the School of Athens. Compare this with 
the great compositions of Signorelli where figures stand 
in monotonous serried ranks. See how the larger group 
breaks up into smaller groups, each centered and com- 
plete in itself and yet retaining organic connection with 


the rest. See how easily the eye travels from group to 
group unconscious of break or barrier, how easy every 
movement, how natural every attitude. Bift these very 
excellences obscure the simpler glory of the early work. 
The faces are still worthy of Raphael, are still finer than 
all else, but they are not seen without effort, usually not 
without study of separated details in reproduction. 

But it is when we come to the dramatic themes that we 
realize the unwholesomeness of the influences to which 
Raphael yielded. The fire in the Borgo, a stirring inci- 
dent in itself, is treated with bathos unutterable. A nude 
youth clambers gratuitously over a meaningless wall to 
show his sinewy form, carefully turning his face mean- 
while for our benefit. A fair woman sits inanely in the 
storm center, not paralyzed with fear but the embodi- 
ment of silly theatrical sham. Not a figure is dazed, 
terrified, even aroused or curious. All is unreal, vulgar 
and insincere. That a picture with these characteristics 
should have been acclaimed means merely that these 
were the characteristics of the age. 

But the end was not yet. Now begins that melan- 
choly period of worldly glory and scattered activities 
which debauched his art if not his character. Honors 
and ill-chosen commissions poured in upon this darling 
of pope and people. He was architect of St. Peter's ; 
he was archeologist of Rome ; ecclesiastical preferment 
offered new temptations and women blandished their 
charms. Raphael was engaged to a cardinal's niece ; 
he was likely soon to be cardinal ; he was rich, and the 
cares of this world and the deceitf ulness of riches choked 
the Word and it became unfruitful. His industry, always 
exemplary, was maintained, but it was scattered and 
wasted. Pictures were drawn for others to color, were 
even merely suggested by rude sketches which the 
coarse hand of Giulio Romano was left to elaborate. 
Thus mingling with turbid streams, the pure inspiration 


of earlier years was wasted to swell the volume of forth- 
right craftsman impulse in whose baser current the art 
of Italy was so soon to be engulfed. When at last the 
fateful fever laid him low Rome mourned as she has 
seldom mourned for Caesar or Pope. It seemed as if 
** the spring had been stricken out of the year." That 
which men aspired to was within his grasp but as yet 
ungrasped ; he had been stricken upon the very thresh- 
old of life's opportunity. But we may dry our tears ; 
or, at least, our mourning, if not less sincere, shall not 
be for ungrasped honors or for the things that lay before. 
We will rather mourn that the day that began in sun- 
shine should have so quickly clouded in, and that he 
who died so young should have survived his inspiration. 


Special Biblioarapbi?. 

Number Twelve. 

Brinton, Selwyn. Correggio. Great Masters of Painting 
and Sculpture. 111. London, Bell, 1900. $1.75. 

Fagan, L. The Works of Correggio at Parma. London, '73. 

Godkin, G. S. The Monastery of San Marco. 111. N. Y., 
Dutton, 1901. $1.25. 

Ghruyer, Gustave. Fra Bartolommeo della Porta et 
Mariotto Albertinelli. Les Artistes Celebres. 111. Paris, 1886. 

A valuable monograph. 

GKiinness, H. Andrea del Sarto. Great Masters in Paint- 
ing and Sculpture. 111. London, Bell, 1901. $1.75. 

Heaton, Mrs. Correggio. London, Low, 1891. 2s. 6d. 

KnackfusB. Kiinstler — Monographien. Correggio. 111. 
N. Y., Lemcke & Buechner, 1898. $1.50. 
This monograph is not yet translated into English. 

Meyer, Dr. Julius. Antonio Allegri da Correggio. Trans- 
lated by Mrs. Heaton. 111. London, Macmillan, 1876. 

This biojg^raphy of inestimable value in its day for its careful sifting of 
material ancTthe soundness of its conclusions, is still an authority although 
superseded by Kicci's monumental work. 

Ricci, CoRRADo. Antonio Allegri da Correggio. 2 v. 

111. London & New York, Scribner, 1896. $12.00. 

This large work, dealing with the life, times and paintings of Correggio, 
stands to the artist in the same relation as Ricci's later bioera^hy does to 
Pinturicchio and Eugene Miintz's to Leonardo da Vinci. Its illustrations 
include, the author states, all the then known works of Correggio. One, how- 
ever, is missing — the Adoration of the Magi recently acquired by the Brera 
from a private collection, and probably ascribed to Correggio since the publi- 
cation of Ricci's book. The writer had access to fresh material that was not 
accessible when Dr. Meyer's biography was published. 

Scott, Leader. Fra Bartolommeo and Andrea del Sarto. 

Great Artists Series. 111. N. Y., Scribner, 1881. $1.25. 

Stranahan, C. H. History of French Psiinting. N. Y., 

Scribner, 1888. $3.50. 

The most complete work on the subject in English. 

Von Remnont. Andrea del Sarto. Leipsic, 1835. — German. 


Century Magazine. 1892, v. 20. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts. v. 14; v. 38. 

London Society. 1883, v. 43. 

Magazine of Art. 1883, v. 6; 1885, v. 8; 1890, v. 13. 

Masters in Art. 1901, October ; December. 

Portfolio. 1888, v. 19. 

Xc00on I. 




FRA BARTOLOMMEO (Baccio della Porta ; n Fattorino). 


Outline for Study, 

Duties of apprentices in a Renaissance bottega ; 
talented youths who sought Cosimo Rosselli for 
artistic training. 

Intimacy between Baccio della Porta and Mario tto 
Albertinelli ; their youthful co-partnership ; 
difference in character and tastes, politics and 
religion ; Baccio a student of church frescos ; 
Albertinelli of the antique. 

Miniature-like finish of Baccio's early work; 
fresco of the Last Judgment for the hospital of 
Santa Maria Nuova — an important link in the 
evolution of scientific composition. (1498-9.) 

Baccio's intellectual power, progressiveness and 
sincerity; his interest in the religious revival 
under Savonarola ; the " bonfire of vanities " ; 
Baccio's entrance into the Order of St. Dom- 
enico ; interruption of his artistic career. 

Albertinelli's paintings during the period of sep- 
aration ; triptych of the Poldi-Pezzoli ; com- 
pletion of the Last Judgment ; tondo in the 
style of Lorenzo di Credi; his masterpiece, 
The Visitation — its purity of sentiment. 

The artistic circle in Florence in 1504; stimulat- 
ing effect on Fra Bartolommeo of Raphael's 
friendship ; what each learned from the other. 


The Frate's resumption of painting ; his frescos in 
San Marco; parallel between him and Fra 

Fra Bartolommeo's visit to Venice (1508) — its 
results in his work ; group of his paintings in 

Second period of partnership with Albertinelli ; 
popularity of the new artistic firm ; works pro- 
duced jointly. (1509-1512.) 

Extension of Fra Bartolommeo's fame — a repre- 
sentative of sixteenth century ideals ; thorough- 
ness of his artistic knowledge ; scientific study 
of design ; introduction of jointed lay figure ; 
his color ; cartoon of Madonna with Patron 
Saints of Florence. 

Fra Bartolommeo's visit to Rome ( 1 5 1 4 ?) ; 
inspiration derived from study of Michel- 
angelo ; introduction of the colossal and statu- 
esque ; St. Mark ; St. Sebastian — an answer 
to aspersions on his ability to draw the nude : 
Salvator Mundi. 

Albertinelli's frescos in Certosa di Val d' Ema ; 
secession from an artistic career and his re- 
turn ; last work in Rome. 


Two assistants of Albertinelli whose experiences 
were parallel — pupils of Ghirlandajo, imitators 
of Fra Bartolommeo, intimate friends of Mich- 
elangelo ; their works. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Savonarola, the reformer within the Church. 

The Piagnoni painters. 

San Marco and its art traditions. 


Art amongst the religious Orders. 

Importance as object lessons of the frescos of the 
Brancacci Chapel and of the cartoons of Leo- 
nardo and Michelangelo. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3253b —Holy Family. 

Painted on wood in 15 16 for the private chapel of Agnolo 
Doni, one of Raphael's early patrons. The resemblance to 
Raphael's Holy Family, known as the Canigiani, is noticeable. 

What geometrical form circumscribes the group? Is 
the arrangement of figures perfectly natural or con- 
strained ? Note similar compositions by Raphael. 

Which has worked within such limitations with more 
freedom? Compare Fra Bartolommeo's pictures with 
each other ; does this form of composition prevail ? 
What are its advantages ? By what devices has he em- 
phasized this form ? How has he broken up its rigidity? 
Do the smaller eleihents of the lower part of the group 
balance the weight of the upper part ? 

Is this preeminently a religious picture ? or is family 
affection the motive ? How does it compare with Raph- 
ael in this respect? Cf. 3421^, 3460^, 3522^. What 
psychological suggestion in Joseph's size and attitude? 
What felicities of line and of thought in Mary and the 
children ? Is there any consciousness in their pose? Are 
the children modeled equally well ? 

What suggestion is conveyed by the building at the 
left? Would a distant town be better ? Why does the 
landscape seem modern? Cf. 1724^, 1909^-, 3427**. 
Does the modern feeling of a landscape depend upon the 
objects selected for representation or the truth to nature 
with which it is painted? With what feeling are the 
flowers in the foreground painted? Of what other 
painters is this equally true ? Would this be the case if 
the picture had been repainted or restored ? 


No. 3255b — Madonna and Cbild. 

On wood; figures half the size of life. Doubts are expressed 
as to the authenticity of the painting ; it is ascribed by some to 

In what other pictures have we found the motif oi the 
child held close to the mother's heart ? In such pictures 
which usually predominates — maternal or filial affection? 
Which is the case here ? Does it detract from the relig- 
ious character ? 

How does this group compare with 3253^ in uncon- 
sciousness, in earnestness, in naturalness of pose, in 
truthfulness of hands and feet? Compare Madonna 
with 3253^, 3258^. Which is the more spiritually sug- 
gestive ? Is it a healthy or morbid type ? How well 
fitted to inspire devotion ? Which of the Madonnas we 
have studied is most suitable for an altarpiece ? Why ? 

Compare the landscape with 3253^, 3283^. What 
resemblances? How is the drapery arranged? What 
is the practise of each artist in this respect ? 

What effect on the picture has the artist's painted 
frame and its decoration ? Why was it done ? 

No. 3258b— The Deposition. 

One of Fra Bartolommeo*s most satisfactory' pieces of color. 
It is accounted his last work and said by Vasari to have been 
finished by Bugiardini ; this statement is discredited bjr Crowe 
and Cavalcaselle, who say, furthermore, that '* it is not possible 
to cite an instance in which a lifeless form is rendered with 
more flexibility or more anatomical accuracy." There were, 
traditionally, two other saints in the group whose disappear- 
ance is not accounted for. 

Is the fact of death emphasized ? Is it made repel- 
lant ? How strong an appeal does it make to our emo- 
tion and sympathy ? Would more of outcry and move- 
ment make it stronger ? Cf. 1909**", 3426^. What does 
it lose in the smaller number of figures ? Is the arrange- 
ment the best possible for beauty, for expression ? 


Is Mary Magdalene's gesture natural ? What Script- 
ural incident does it recall ? How does her position 
affect the dignity of the composition? What is the 
center of interest ? Is unity of design or sentiment dis- 
turbed in any way ? Why does John look out of the 
picture ? 

What effect has the lack of emphasis on worldly con. 
ditions? Have other artists treated this subject as 
unaffectedly? Cf. Perugino, Raphael, Garofalo and 
others. In what has the interest of these artists centered? 
Whose conception is the most lofty ? How much of our 
interest is due to the beauty of types ? 

What proofs of thorough understanding of perspective ? 

Of faithful study of anatomy and textures ? 

What decorative element is introduced ? Does it de- 

tract from the naturalism of the picture ? 

No. 3265l> — Christ at Emmaus. 

Of this fresco, now installed in Savonarola's apartments, 
La Fenestre says that it was painted in Pian di Mugnone, after- 
ward placed over a door leading into the Refectory of San 
Marco. The colors are very rich. The two disciples — called 
Luke and Cleophas — are portraits of two priors of San Marco 
in the early sixteenth century; the side face, Fra Niccol6, later 
Cardinal Schomberg ; the other, Santo Pagnini. 

What earlier artist painted a similar subject in a lunette 
in the cloister of San Marco ? Compare the two. What 
indications that he influenced Fra Bartolommeo ? In 
which is there greater sense of reality, more beauty? 
What comparison in respect of dignity, poetic treatment, 
religious inspiration ? 

Is the Christ-face characteristic of Fra Bartolommeo ? 
Is it a new ideal? Compare with Raphael, Perugino, 
Cima da Conegliano, Fra Angelico and others : which is 
the richest expression of Christ-like qualities ? 

What is the meaning of the disciples' gestiures ? How 
is the effect of symmetry or balance obtained ? What is 


chiefly interesting in the fresco — a moral lesson, its fit- 
ness as an illustration, its technique, or what? How 
would you know it is a fresco ? 

No. 3262 b — Madonna enthroned, 

With St. Anne and surrounded by ten patron saints of Florence. 
(Also called The Conception.) 

No. 3263^ — Detail of the sama 

This carefully prepared cartoon was never colored, but is 
complete in design, drawing and modeling in brown. Numer- 
ous sketches for the work exist showing that the figures were 
first constructed nude. The painting was ordered by the Sig- 
nory for the Papal Hall ; this was the Hall of the Great Coun- 
cil designed under Savonarola for municipal purposes after con- 
sultation with Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, and its 
erection superintended by Cronaca. On its walls were also 
the famous cartoons by Leonardo and Michelangelo. 

On what geometrical form or forms is this composition 
based ? How is stability given ? How is the monotony 
of a severe symmetry relieved? Is there a sense of 
space or are the figures crowded ? Does the architec- 
ture form an appropriate setting ? Are the figures in 
accord with it ? Is this a natural arrangement ? A cer- 
emonial one ? May it be both ? Which is more appro- 
priate? Are they arranged with a view to individual 
grace or agreeable grouping ? 

Are the little angels riotous ? Sportive ? Do they fly 
or float ? Is their moveixient consistent with their func- 
tion ? What connection has the triple face with the mo- 
tive of the picture ? With the general design ? Why is 
St. Anne introduced ? Why so placed ? What is the 
meaning of her gesture ? 

Are the saints careful character studies ? By what 
symbols are they distinguished ? Did custom change in 
this respect ? Why ? 

W^hat resemblance between these figures and 3260^ in 
attitude and sentiment? Is there any mannerism in 
arrangement of drapery? Do these two pictures indicate 


that Fra Bartolommeo was under a new and powerful 
influence ? Why? 

No. 3264b — Angels ^vith Musical Instruments. 

Detail of a monumental composition representing the double 
marriage of St. Catherine of Siena and St. Catherine of Alex- 
andria, but also called Madonna Enthroned : the angels are 
seated at the foot of the throne. The panel was painted after 
the artist's visit to Venice and indicates Bellini's influence. 

(Erroneously catalogued as detail of 3262^ .) 

Compare with the little musicians in Bellini's pictures^ 
2148^, 2149^, 2150^. Is there equal facility, equal de- 
votion ? Which is the more advanced art ? Explain. 

What is the age of these angels ? How generally is 
that the case with Fra Bartolommeo's angels ? How do 
they correspond in that respect with Raphael, the Vene- 
tians and others ? What has Fra Bartolommeo gained ? 
Are his angels consistent with the general sentiment of 
his work? What is the case in their use by other 
painters ? How often are these puUi introduced merely 
as ornamental accessories and how often to emphasize 
the spiritual significance of the composition ? 

Why has Fra Bartolommeo introduced them? Are 
they always necessary to the development of his design ^ 

Have they any trace af grossness ? What degree of 
sympathy with child-life do they indicate ? 

How do their movements and their draperies differ 
from Raphael's puttil Do the angels in this picture 
belong to Fra Bartolommeo's early or late period? 
Your reasons. 

No. 3260^ — St. Mark. 

Painted in oil on canvas, in 1515, after the artist's return from 
Rome, for San Marco. The figure is nearly thirteen feet in 

Was this intended for a character study of the Evan- 
gelist? What traits are strongly brought out? What 

lines in the face are significant ? 


Cf. 3253^, 3258^, 3265^. What was the artist's chief 
concern in these ? What in 3260^? Has the last less 
simplicity and breadth ? Are figure, pose and drapery 
more carefully studied than the face ? Does the drapery 
seem to have been arranged on the figure or designed 
with little thought of the forms beneath ? Is it a gar- 
ment or is it merely drapery ? Cf. 1544*. 

How may the shortness of the figure be explained ? 
What is there in the story of the Evangelist to suggest a 
dramatic pose ? How should a picture of St. John 
Evangelist or St. Luke differ from this? Cf. again 
3265^. Are the characters in both pictures equally 
without self-consciousness ? What new influence is indi- 
cated by 3260^? Does it suggest sculpture? Has the 
artist made a forward or a retrograde movement ? 

No. 3270b -^ Savonarola as St. Peter Mart]rr. 

Small panel ; the face modeled with a delicacy that cannot 
be fully indicated in a reproduction. Painted at Pian di Mug- 
none, late in the artist's life, from memory; it therefore lacks 
the force and life-likeness of the well-known head of Savonarola 
in his apartments at San Marco, which is a copy of one painted 
from life about 1495; the original of that has been in a private 
collection at Prato, but is said to be now in Florence. 

Why should Savonarola be represented as St. Peter 
martyr? Would another martyred saint have been 
equally appropriate ? Does it add to the impressiveness 
of the portrait ? 

Does the face express humility? Strength? What 
other character suggestion? Is the expression appro- 
priate to a man about to suffer mart3n-dom ? How true 
is it to Savonarola's historic character ? What aspect 
of his character would most appeal to the artist ? Do 
the peculiarities of the head suggest portraiture or care- 
less drawing ? 

No. 32BV> —St. Catherine. 

One wing of a very small triptych of exquisite finish ; the 
center panel is arched to correspond with this half, and repre- 


sents Madonna and the child ; on the right wing is St. Barbara. 
So marked a Flemish influence pervades these panels that their 
origin has been much in question. The figure of St. Catherine, 
which is far different from and superior to the others, has been 
ascribed to Fra Bartolommeo and to Raphael, but is now given 
to Albertinelli. 

What fine details of the story of St. Catherine are 
suggested ? Are they made prominent ? Does the pic- 
ture contain the saint's emblem ? Does the elliptical 
motif occur more than once ? 

Does the figure indicate the hand of a master or a nov- 
ice ? Why ? Is the treatment of drapery characteristic 
of either Albertinelli or Fra Bartolommeo ? Is the type 
of face similar to their Madonnas or angels ? 

Are the landscape and distant castle Italian in char- 
acter ? Cf. Perugino, Sodoma and North Italians. Is 
this scene suitable for a large picture ? Where do you 
find the counterpart of this in depth and fervor of feel- 
ing, in naturalness and unconsciousness ? 

No. 3283b ~ Holy FamUy. 

Tondo, 33 inches in diameter, figures one-half the size of 
life. It dates from 1503 : details of the landscape are painted 
with minute care. 

How does this compare with other round pictures that 
we have studied in adaptation of its forms to the circle ? 
Is the emphasis that is laid on the vertical line signifi- 
cant ? Why was the tree introduced ? Was reality the 
artist's aim ? Does it serve as a connecting link ? 

Which shows the most ripeness, this or 3281^? Which 
the more careful attention to detail? What difference in 
feeling and treatment between Madonna and the angel ? 
On which does the eye rest more naturally and why ? 
Is there a reminder of another artist's influence? Is 
the angel an original conception ? Why does the artist 
continue to use this head-covering for Madonna ? Cf . 

Botticelli, Raphael, Fra Bartolommeo. 



Explain the clothing of the Christ- child. What is in 
his hand ? What is the angel giving him ? Is this a 
satisfactory conception of the Child ? Is the introduc- 
tion of Joseph well arranged ? 

Is beauty a marked element in this picture ? Is it 
advanced art, for its time, or old-fashioned ? Examine in 
detail. Does it suggest that art is becoming more or 
less religious ? How thoroughly is it in accord with 
other work of the period in this respect ? 

No. 3285b -. The Visitation. 

Called also The Salutation. Panel, 7.6 x 4.8 ; the accompany- 
ing predella has three compartments. Painted for the congre- 
gation of San Marco in 1503, after the dissolution of the first 
period of partnership with Baccio del la Porta. The colors are 
rich and warm and the whole picture is admirably preserved. 

Was the architectural framing introduced for pictorial 
effect ? To locate the incident ? What out-door sugges- 
tions are here ? What other artist has made use of sim- 
ilar hints of landscape ? What is added to the picture 
by the careful study of the ground ? Of the sky ? 

In what spirit are the two women meeting ? Is their 
feeling deep, subtle? Is contrast between age and 
youth emphasized ? Is that usually done in this sub- 
ject? Cf. 1723^. What opportunities does this inci" 
dent offer the artist ? Has Albertinelli fully availed him- 
self of them by realistic rendering or by suggestion ? 

What historical period is indicated by their costume ? 
How are the draperies handled ? Has that any impor- 
tance except technically? What advantages has this 
simplicity of treatment ? Cf. Fra Bartolommeo. 

Is modeling characterized by extreme softness ? Cf. 
3210^. By indefiniteness ? Cf. 3600^. By hardness? 
Cf. 2061^. What degree of mastery of anatomy is indi- 
cated ? What are the reasons for the high esteem in 
which this picture is held ? 


General Questions, 

In the work of what other artists does the elliptical 
form of head prevail? What evidences of physical 
strength and vigor or the reverse are found in Fra 
Bartolommeo's personages ? In Albertinelli's ? 

Toward what qualities of art was Fra Bartolommeo's 
attention particularly directed ? What studies or influ- 
ences fostered this inclination ? What traits suggest the 
peasant painter ? How does he compare with Giotto in 
this respect ? 

What instances can you recall in which art training 
has apparently refined the native character ? What evi- 
dences in his work of the influence of monastic life ? To 
what extent did his religious profession deprive him of 
secular liberty? 

What individual traits are in Fra Bartolommeo's 
paintings ? How strongly marked is his individuality as 
compared with Leonardo, Raphael, Botticelli? What 
effect upon his art had his indifference to anachromism 
as in costume and buildings ? Would his pictures be 
more or less admirable were such historical data ob- 
served ? Why? Is his draughtsmanship equal to his 
skill in design? Is his Madonna type spiritual, intel- 
lectual, strong? 

How do Albertinelli's pictures resemble each other and 
Fra Bartolommeo's ? What degree of dependence upon 
the frate is indicated ? 



3253*> . . . Rome — Corsini. Holy Family. 

3255b. . . Venice — Seminario Patriarcale. Madonna and 

Child. (Questioned. ) 
3258b . . . Florence — Pitti. The Deposition. 
3260b . . . Florence — Pitti. St. Mark. 
3262b . . . Florence — Uffizi. Madonna Enthroned. 
3263b . . . Detail of 3262b . 


3264^ . . . Florence — Pitti. Angels with musical instruments ; 

3265l> . . . Florence — S.Marco. Christ at Emmaus. 
327o*> . . . Florence — Academy. Savonarola as St. Peter 



328i*> . . . Milan — Poldi-Pezzoli. St. Catherine: Compart- 
ment of Triptych. 
3283b . . . Florence — Pitti. Holy Family. 
3285b. . . Florence — Uffizi. The Visitation. 

Berenson .... Florentine Painters. 77-78. 

Cartwright . . . Painters of Florence. 287-306. 

Century Magazine, v. 20. 347-350. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in Italy, v. III. 427-478 : 


Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 246-249. 

Godkin The Monastery of San Marco. Ch. 3, 4 and 5. 

Gruyer Fra Bartolommeo et Mariotto Albertinelli. 

Heaton History of Painting. 100-103. 

Jarves Art Studies. 338-347. 

Keane Early Teutonic, French and Italian Masters : 

(translation of Dohme). 402-421. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 444-453. 

Magazine of Art. v. 6. 426-428. 

Morelli .... Italian Painters, v. i. 97; 100; 122-126. 

Muntz L' Age d' Or. 676-688. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 501-503. 

Oliphant .... Makers of Florence. (Savonarola; the Piag- 


Scott Fra Bartolommeo. 1-61. 

Stillman .... Old Italian Masters. 183-189. 

Symonds . . . . Age of Despots. Ch. 9. (Savonarola.) 

Symonds . . . . Fine Arts. 304-311. 

Symonds .... Sketches and Studies, v. II. 239-242. (Sa- 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 60-94. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 506- 


Yriarte Florence : article Savonarola. 


ANDREA DEL 8ARTO (Andrea d' Agnolo). 1486-1531. 

" The faultless painter." 
Outline for Study, 

Heritage of a young painter in 1500 and demands 
made upon him by popular taste; Andrea's 
education and youthful associates; his strong 
artistic personality. 

Frescos in the court and cloister of Santissima 
Annunziata (Church of the Servites) (1509- 
1514) ; development of Andrea's style. 

Monochrome frescos in the cloister of the Scalzo 
(15 14-1526); form of comiposition ; force and 
directness of the narrative ; Andrea's indebted- 
ness to Diirer. 

The palmy days of fresco technique ; Florence 
versus Venice in mural decoration ; Andrea's 
rank zs frescante. 

Temptations to which young artists wefe subject 
in the early sixteenth century. 

Influence of Andrea's marriage on his character 
and on his art : the ever-recurring face of Lu- 
crezia in his paintings. 

His easel pictures before his visit to France; 
Madonna of the Harpies ; The Disputa. 

Residence at the French Court; patronage of 
Francis I.; Andrea's work of this period (15 18- 
15 19); his popularity ; influence on the School 
of Fontainebleau ; early return to Italy and 
loss of opportunity ; Vasari's unproven 

Fresco at Poggio a Cajano ; The Last Supper at 
San Salvi — its realism and lack of subtlety. 

Late easel pictures ; portraits of himself as char- 
acter studies. 


Andrea's eminence as a composer ; his versatility ; 
intelligent stiidy of the works of contemporary 
artists ; perfection of his art and its limitations ; 
lack of ideality and spiritual elevation. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Artist life in Florence in the early sixteenth cen- 
tury; Club of the Cauldron. (Brown, Fine 
Arts ; Leader Scott.) 

Browning's interpretation of Andrea del Sarto. 

Growth of color sense in the Florentine School. 

Importance of festa decorations and their assign- 
ment to artists of high rank. 

The native school of painting in France. 

The School of Fontainebleau ; influence of Italian 
painters on French art. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3304b — Birth of the Virgin : detail. 

This and 3305b were the last of the series of frescos painted in 
the Court of S.S. Annunziata; 1511-1519. 3304b represents 
** the highest level attained to by fresco — transparent in color, 
faultless in handling." The detail here given is the lower half 
of the picture ; the upper portion comprises a stately canopy 
over the bed, on which rest joyous putti and a larger ^ngel^ 
partially enveloped in clouds. The woman in the center of the 
foreground who turns her face toward the front of the picture 
is Lucrezia's first appearance in Andrea's work. 

Into how many groups is the picture divided ? How 
are they united? Is there a natural distribution of 
attention ? Has anything been sacrificed to a pictorial 
effect ? What local customs are suggested ? Has the 
artist drawn from his imagination in any of the details ? 
Is there historical accuracy of costume anywhere in the 
picture ? What especially modern accessories are pres- 
ent } Do these add to or detract from the interest of 
the picture ? 


Compare with Ghirlandajo's fresco of a similar theme, 
17 lo*. Which artist has more truthfully represented the 
spirit of such an occasion ? Are both works open to the 
same objections? What superiority in either? In 
which do the figures seem to be actually moving ? 

Is 3304^ noticeable for its vivid narration ? Its reli- 
gious character ? Its stateliness ? Its beauty of indi- 
vidual forms or faces ? 

No. 3305b — Adoration of the Magi 

This procession is an extension of the fresco of the Nativity 
of Christ painted by Baldovinetti in 1460. The group of three 
spectators on the extreme right are said to be portraits of the 
artist pointing out of the picture, his friend Jacopo Sansovino 
next to him, and the musician Ajolle. 

Compare with 1403^, 2116^. Which tells the story 
better ? Which is the more decorative ? In which do 
faces count for most ? What difference in ideals ? Which 
of the old features are retained ? What new elements 
are introduced ? 

How are the effects of light and air obtained ? Is the 
landscape remarkable in this respect? Cf. Perugino, 
Sodoma, Francia, Raphael. How does it differ from 
others ? Is it intention, accident, carelessness ? 

Is 3305^ an advance in the direction of perfected art ? 
Of more plausible illustration ? What gives it its some- 
what archaic character ? Was there a reason for design- 
ing it in an earlier style ? 

What had art gained in fifty years? What had it 

No. 3308b — The Annunciation. 

On wood, 3.1 X4.6. Lunette over Madonna Enthroned, Berlin 
Museum. Painted for the church in Sarzatia, 1528. The cur- 
tains were added later to make the picture rectangular. 

What physical traits of a young girl are here ? What 
was the Virgin's attitude before she saw the angel ? Are 


the figures constrained by the shape of the picture ? 
How complete is the indication of her mental attitude ? 

In what respect is the angel unconventional ? Are 
these select types — i, e,, suitable, refined, removed from 
the commonplace ? What artists have treated this sub- 
ject with higher spiritual suggestion ? 

What is the shape of the Composition ? Is the geo- 
metrical form duplicated ? Could two pictures be made 
from this, each complete as a study in composition of 
lines ? Are the two figures sufficiently united ? Is it a 
design of flowing lines ? If this had not been an addi- 
tion (the Italian term is finimento) to a larger picture, 
would the treatment have been different ? Is the vase 
drawn in a position above or below the eye ? How do 
you judge ? Were the figures drawn from the same 
position ? 

No. 3314b — Madonna of the Harpies. 

No. 3315b _ Detail ol 3314b . 

On wood, 7.10x6.10. Painted in 1517 for a community of 
Franciscan Nuns. Sold in 1704 to the Ducal family for a sum 
that built them a church. It is considered Andrea's finest panel 
picture. The name refers to the sculptured ornament of the 
pedestal on which Madonna stands. The saints are Francis and 
John Evangelist. 

Has this the feeling of a Holy Family ? Of a " Santa 
Conversazione " } Are the members of the group inter- 
ested in each other ? Does one thought animate all ? 
Why are they placed together? What causes the Child's 
glee ? What is the intellectual content of ^he picture ? 
How intent was the artist upon spiritual expression ? 

Indicate studies of texture — is the flesh like real flesh ? 
Note the drapery falling over the knee of Madonna and 
of St. John : how intelligent is this treatment ? How 
does it differ from the treatment of Madonna's sleeve ? 
Examine other pictures b*^^ Andrea — is it a mannerism ? 


Do the draperies reveal the forms ? What evidence that 
Andrea studied the human form ? 

Are the shape of the group and its more important 
lines emphasized ? In how many ways ? How con- 
stantly does Andrea use this form ? Cf. 3253**. Which 
design is the more scientific ? In which is the science 
best concealed ? Is this strong work ? What makes it 

effective ? 

No. 3317b —Charity. 

Painted on wood, 6 ft. x 4.6, while the artist was in France : 
transferred to canvas in 1550 and again in 1842. The faces have 
been changed in expression from the repairs thus necessitated. 

How have other artists treated this subject under the 
same allegory ? What impresses you first — the senti- 
ment, beauty of faces and forms, technical excellences, 
or the way in which the group is built up ? Which was 
paramount in the artist's mind ? Would the idea make 
as strong an appeal if it were dissociated from physical 
beauty ? 

What elements of breadth and grandeur in the com- 
position ? Is it weakened by breaking up of the large 
masses in the lower part? Cf. 3253^, 3473^. Is action 
over-wrought ? Are there any signs of limitation ? Is 
Andrea here the " faultless painter " ? 

Does the matron's face suggest that the same model 
served for numerous pictures ? Has it the air of a por- 
trait or an idealization ? Does the composition seem a 
domestic episode or the expression of an abstract idea ? 

Compare the landscape with 3305^. In which is the 
tree character more truthful ? 

No. 3319b — Pieta. 

On wood ; figures less than life sizes. Painted for the King of 
France in 15 18. 

How does a Piet^ differ from a Deposition, from an 

Entombment ? Compare with earlier pictures. 


Does the spiritual element predominate here ? Sup- 
pose this were by Giotto — would it be thought to lack 
spirituality ? Did Giotto paint anything so expressive of 
emotion as this ? Is the mother abandoned to grief ? 
Does her face express hope, resignation, any emotion of 
profound depth ? Does she make a personal appeal to 
us ? Is her emotion contagious ? 

Cf. 3258^. What ought to be the feeling of the 
angels ? Is such feeling indicated ? 

Are the phenomena of death represented with fidelity ? 
Was the artists' chief interest the study of the nude ? 
Cf. 2062^, 2146^. Is the flesh painted in the Venetian 
manner ? In the manner of Fra Bartolommeo ? Of 
Albertinelli ? What is its distinguishing characteristic ? 

No. 3321b — Portrait of a Sculptor. 
This has been called a portrait of the artist himself. 

No. 3341b — Portrait of Andrea del Sarto. 

What ground for considering both of these portraits of 
Andrea ? Which is the more youthful face ? Which the 
more youthful work ? Which is painted with more 
freedom ? 

What differences in treatment ? In which are the 
forms of the face and the drapery more clearly defined 
by the modeling? Do they suggest the Florentine 
manner ? The Venetian ? Why ? 

Are the faces subtle? Cf. Leonardo's works and 
3489*. Are they shallow ? Are they character studies 
or examples of the painters* art? Cf. 3015^, 3027**, 
3454*. How does Andrea's manner differ from Leonar- 
do's and Raphael's ? Is this true of all his work ? 

No. 3326b — Beheading of John the Baptist. 

Painted in 1523 for the Brotherhood of the Scalzi (the name — 
"barefooted" — given to the company of the Discipline of 
John the Baptist because they went barefooted when they car- 


ried the cross in processions. Their Convent opposite San 
Marco had a cloister 38 x 32 feet with beautiful Corinthian 
columns ; this was adorned with a series of sixteen frescos in 
monochrome, chiefly scenes from the life of John the Baptist. 
The work began in 1514, was completed in 1526. 

Is interest naturally distributed ? How could the com- 
position be made stronger without sacrificing its illustra- 
tive quality? Have the principles of scientific composi- 
tion been observed ? 

In what respect is the artist's treatment naturalistic? 
Cf. 1235*. How has he modified the horror of the 
scene ? What sentiment is expressed by the figures at 
the left ? What other artist is recalled by the figure of 
the executioner? What is emphasized in this figure? 
How has the scene been given a Roman character ? 

How does this differ from Andrea's other work ? Is 
the picture improved by its frame ? 

No. 3328^ — ABBumption of the Virgin. 

On wood, 12.3x7.1. Painted before 1526 for S. Antonio, Cor- 
tona, by order of Madonna Margherita, widow of Rossato 
Passerini. The kneeling figures in the foreground are St. Mar- 
garet of Cortona and St. Nicholas of Bari. A very similar 
picture, left unfinished at Andrea's death, now hangs opposite 
this in the Pitti. 

Wheie has this Madonna type appeared before? 
Does it grow in beauty and depth of sentiment ? 

How is the sense of uplift accomplished ? Is it com- 
plete ?• Are the cherubs human or divine ? Elevated or 
commonplace types? How do they compare with Ra- 
phael's, Correggio's ? Do they lack grace, vivacity, reality? 

Why are the saints introduced ? Are they painted in 
the same manner as the apostles? Around what are 
they grouped ? What is expressed by their faces and 
gestures? How are the two parts of the picture bound 
together ? Are the faces of the apostles strong, actual ? 
What is the artistic value of this work? Cf. 3130^, 

32iS^» 3435^, 3545*" 


No. 3335 b — Madonna del Sacco. 

Fresco over the door leading from the cloister into the church. 
It was painted in 1525 for a woman who had a vow to perform, 
this being the form of absolution arranged by the priest. 

Is this a hackneyed theme ? Where has it occurred 
before? What does it suggest? Is the arrangement 
natural ? 

What suggestion in the arrangement of the bounding 
space ? What harmonious lines are found ? What geo- 
metrical figures do they form ? Is the principal form 
duplicated ? How is depth gained ? 

Recall other examples of clever composition. Which 
is most simple and unaffected ? Most unrestrained ? 

Is the feeling of the picture stateliness, divine mother- 
hood, self-consciousness ? Is it religious or secular ? 

No. 3337b — The Last Supper. 

Fresco, 15.3x28. 10. Painted 1525-27 in the Convent Refec- 
tory on the wall opposite the door ; viewed from there it has an 
appearance of wonderful reality. It was considered by con- 
temporaries one of Andrea's ablest works ; later critics consider 
it the only presentation of this subject worthy of comparison 
with Leonardo da Vinci's. During the siege of Florence in 
1529 the soldiers who were detailed to raze the building were 
checked, on entering the room, by the beauty of this painting 
and left the building unharmed. 

Does unusual excitement prevail ? Has the Savior's 
statement made a convincing impression ? Have all the 
disciples heard it? Was the artist powerfully in sym- 
pathy with the occasion ? 

Is this united by a single thought ? Is it bound to- 
gether by its grouping ? Is the movement rhythmical ? 
Cf. Leonardo's Last Supper, 3005^. 

How is Judas indicated? Cf. again, 3005^, also 1722**, 

What difficulties does a design with long horizontal 
lines impose upon the artist? What devices used by 
Andrea to overcome them? Has he imparted vivid 
interest and variety to the composition ? 


Did he intentionally make the figures of different sizes ? 
For what purpose ? Does the upper part of the compo- 
sition overweight the lower ? 

Where else have we seen spectators added in this 
position ? Can you explain how the artist has conveyed 
the illusion of reality mentioned in the introductory note ? 

General Questions. 

What do you understand by scientific composition ? 
Was it more an object with artists of the sixteenth cen- 
tury than of the fifteenth ? Toward what ends did fif- 
teenth century artists direct their scientific inquiry? In 
looking at the natural grouping of living objects are we 
pleased in proportion to their harmony with rules of 
pictorial composition? Is there really artistic gain in 
designing works of art according to such rules ? Why? 

Which had the highest conception of human beauty — 
Andrea, Fra Bartolommeo or Raphael ? In whose art 
was the larger intellectual and spiritual element ? How 
did Andrea change the traditions of the Florentine 
School — what new qualities did he leave behind him ? 
In what did his eminence consist? Why is he not 
placed in the foremost rank of artists ? 

3304'' • 

3305^ . 
3308b . 

3314^ • 




3326b . 

3328b . 

3335** . 
3337^ . 
3341^ . 


Florence — S.S. Annunziata. Birth of the Virgin; 

Florence — S.S. Annunziata. Adoration of the Magi. 
Florence — Pitti. The Annunciation. 
Florence — Uffizi. Madonna of the Harpies. 

Detail of 3314b . 
Paris — Louvre. Charity. 
Vienna — Imperial Gallery. Pieti. 
London — National Gallery. Portrait of a Sculptor. 
Florence — Scalzi. Beheading of John the Baptist. 
Florence — Pitti. Assumption of the Virgin. 
Florence — S.S. Annunziata. Madonna del Sacco. 
Florence — S. Salvi. The Last Supper. 
Florence — Pitti. Portrait of Andrea del Sarto. 


Berenson .... Florentine Painters. 78-81. 

Brown Fine Arts. §65-69: §71-73. 

Browning . . . Andrea del Sarto, in men and women. 

Cartwright. . . Painters of Florence. 312-338. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in Italy, v. HI. 542-587. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts. v. 14, 465; 1887? v. 38. 261 ; 338. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 249-250. 

Guinness .... Andrea del Sarto. 

Heaton History of Painting. 138-141. 

Jarves Art Studies. 363-370. 

Keane Early Teutonic, French and Italian Masters. 


Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 456-460. 

Magazine of Art. v. 8. 84-88 : v. 13. 329-331. (Francis I. of 

Masters in Art . 1901. October. Part 22. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 203-204. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 127-128; v. II. 261-263. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 503-510. 

Rea Tuscan Artists. 1 57-159. 

Scott Fra Bartolommeo and Andrea del Sarto. 72- 

Stillman .... Old Italian Masters. 233-237. 
Stranahan . . . French Painting. 9-15. 
Symonds . . . Fine Arts. 496-498, 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 234.-302. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 513-520. 


Outline for Study, 

T^LAXiClK BIGIO (Francesco di CMstoforo Bigi). 


Relations to Albertinelli and Andrea ; studies in 
Brancacci Chapel and Papal Hall. 

His frescos in the Scalzo cloister and elsewhere in 

Portraits and other easel pictures ; various attri- 
butions of paintings now believed to be by him. 


Interest of Florentine painters of this period in 


Ridolfo's inheritance of talent and taste ; his aims 
in art ; works on which his reputation is based. 
His friendship with Raphael. 

IL ROSSO (RoBBO Florentino ; Glovambattiata di Jaoopo 

di Qnaspare). 1494-1541. 

His peculiar characteristic ; career in France. 

IL BACCHIACCA (Francesco Ubertlni). 1494-1557. 

A representative of the influence of several 

Bacchiacca's teachers and friends in Florence ; 

his associates in Rome. 
Ascription of his works to more famous artists. 

PONTORMO (Jacopo Camcci). 1494-1557. 

Characteristics of Pontormo's paintings; more 
important works in fresco in Florence and vicin- 
ity ; his portraits. 

The fashion of studying under various masters 
that prevailed at this time. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3295b — Madonna del Pobbo. 

Long ascribed to Raphael. The name refers to the well in 
the background. 

How is the climbing motif emphasized ? Is this an 
example of scientific composition ? What marks of 
ability in landscape painting ? Does this background 
enhance or diminish interest in the subject? How? 

Is the Madonna type unlike others that we have 
studied ? What resemblance to Albertinelli in arrange- 
ment of light and shade ? To Andrea in modeling ? To 


Raphael in types, movement or sentiment? Cf. 3421*. 
Was the artist sensitive to beauty ? Skilled in 
draughtsmanship? Is the picture essentially religious? 

No. 3350^ — Madonna enthroned with £(aints. 

Oil, on wood. Lower part of an altarpiece. The attendant 
figures are St. Dominic and St.- Jerome. 

Is the picture characterized by propriety ? Is it a truly 
religious work or perfunctory ? What repetitions of ges- 
ture or attitude ? Does this necessarily indicate poverty 
of invention ? Interpret the gestures and manner of 
each person. Is there any peculiarity in St. Jerome's 
attitude that recalls Raphael or Perugino ? In what dif- 
ferent ways has the artist sought for decorative effect ? 
Is anything new introduced in St. Dominic ? 

What reasons were there for a sixteenth-century artist 
to observe such exact symmetry? Is monotony the 
result ? What traits to admire in drawing, pose, drapery, 
landscape ? 

Does this work suggest the influence of Domenico 
Ghirlandajo ? Of Costa ? Francia ? Raphael or Leo- 
nardo ? Was Ridolfo original or an eclectic ? 

No. 3361b —Portrait of Coslmo de' MedicL 

Said to be a copy of a fifteenth century portrait of Coslmo, 
Pater patriae. Another portrait by Pontormo, bearing the same 
name, is of Cosimo I. , Duke of Tuscany. 

- What propriety in the book and pen ? In book alone ? 
Would there be less if the book were unornamented ? Is 
the ornamentation characteristic of the time ? Are 
hands and feet drawn in a peculiarly truthful expressive 
manner by Florentine artists of this time ? Is this fig- 
ure of noble proportions ? How would you characterize 
the drapery? Is there any faultiness in draughtsman- 
ship ? Would a portrait painted in Cosimo's own time 
be executed in this manner ? Is this an improvement ? 
Does the figure suggest the ecclesiastic, humanist, matt 
of affairs ? Did Cosimo belong to either class ? Can 


you recall another instance where the halo surmounts a 
cap or other head covering ? Does he carry a pen or 
the martyr's palm ? What reason for investing him with 
these sacred symbols ? 

No. 3370^ — Angel playing a Lute. 

Has this the air of a study from life ? Is it a refined 
type ? Compare with cherubs by Raphael. Would it be 
possible for a body to be hidden behind the lute ? What 
is the inference ? How is the lute supported ? 

Does this suggest the heavenly host .? Or diablerie? 
Why is the hair treated thus ? Is there equal attention 
to texture in wings, flesh and hair ? Does this resemble 
Andrea del Sarto ? Correggio ? How does the painter 
rank as to individuality ? 


3295b. . . Florence — Uffizi. Madonna del Pozzo. 


3350** . . . New Haven — Yale Art Gallery. Madonna enthroned 
with Saints. 


3361b. . . Florence — Uffizi. Portrait of Cosimo de' Medici. 

n. ROSSO. 

3370b. . . Florence — Uffizi. Angel playing a Lute. 

Cartwright . . . Painters of Florence. 329-335. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in Italy, v. III. 500-512; 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 249 ; 454-455 ; 460-463. 

Magazine of Art. v. 8. 84 ; 206-208. 

Morelli Italian masters in German Galleries. 344-350. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 98-113; 128-130. 

Muntz La fin de la Renaissance. 495-501. 

Scott Fra Bartolommeo. 62-66; 115. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 520- 

524; 642. 


Xc00on0 3 anb 4* 


DOSSO DOSSI (Qiovanni di Zmtero). 1479>1542. 

Outline for Study, 

Centers of art and letters in the province of 

Ferrarese painting early in the sixteenth century ; 
Dosso, an artist of originality and power; 
ideality and romantic character of his work; 
experiments in color and chiaroscuro. 

Dosso Court painter to Alfonso of Ferrara; 
probable contact with Correggio in the neigh- 
boring city of Mantua. 

The painting of Circe ; frescos in the palace of 
the Estense ; work in the Gonzaga palace at 

Garofalo, a descendant of the school of Tura; 
his intimacy with Dosso. 

Garofalo's ability ; evidences of the influence of 
Costa and Raphael in his later works — his 
pseudonym, the " Ferrarese Raphael." 

His large altarpieces ; grisaille frescos in the 
Seminario, Ferrara — their subjects ; his Depo- 
sition. Artistic relation of Dosso and Garofalo 
to earlier painters of the Emilian province. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3765b — Circe. 

Possibly suggested by Ariosto's Orlando. 

Does this seem a scene from classic mythology ? 
Why? From mediaeval allegory? How much of its in- 
terest and strangeness does it owe to the costume ? What 
place and period does that represent ? 


What interpretation may be placed on the animals and 
armor ? On Circe's action ? Is she conscious of cruelty 
or is she interested merely in the success of her incan- 
tations ? 

How does this landscape differ in subject and treat- 
ment from those previously studied ? What was the 
artist's attitude toward nature ? What effect has it on 
the picture ? 

No. 3767b — Nymph pursued by Satyr. 

The former attribution to Giorgione is now quite generally 
discarded although one of his latest biographers sees his draw- 
ing in the nymph. The subject is in accord with Dosso's 
known interest in the fantastic. 

Does the nymph express fear? Why are her eyes 
distended ? Is the arrangements of her hair incompat- 
ible with swift movement ? What elements of beauty in 
her face and figure ? Could this face • accompany an 
intellectual or profound character ? 

Does the satyr express malice ? How is the satyr 
character rendered? Define the character-difference 
between these two. Is there intentional contrast ? How 
successful has the artist been in suggesting the conjectu- 
ral region between the spiritual and the animal ? 

Are the heads clearly outlined against the background ? 
How are the outlines of the bodies handled ? Is any 
other artist recalled by the arrangement of light and 
shade? Cf. 2163*. What resemblances, differences? 

No. 3770b -^ The Deposition. 

Considered by an eminent critic the finest Ferrarese work of 
this time. 

What fact is emphasized? Is attention divided? 
Could the artist have chosen a more effective way of 
appealing to our sympathy? Is there any other methpd 
of appeal here ? Anything to weaken the solemnity of 
the scene ? 


Does this - suggest an early or a late artist ? Why? 
What peculiarity in the treatment of the dead Christ ? 
Was this done to display the artist's skill in the nude ? 
Is his skill in fleshly forms noticeable throughout . the 
picture ? How are the ears characteristic ? 

What motive for the introduction of the figures on 
the extreme left ? Is it objectionable ? 

What resemblance between this landscape and that of 
3765^? Does this argue that this treatment was charac- 
teristic of this place and time ? Cf. also 3102^. 


* 37^5** • • • Rome — Borghese. Circe. 
3767b . . . Florence— Pitti. Nymph and Satyr (attributed). 


377o>> . . . Rome — Borghese. The Deposition. 

Berenson .... Study and Criticism of Italian Art. 30-35. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 267-270. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 358-362. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries, x 14-120. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 200-219; v. II. 140-144. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 562-563 ; 565-566. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History- of Painting. II. 576-580. 


" The Faun of the Renaissance." 
Outline for Study. 

Correggio's education — Ferrarese and Lombard 
influences ; evidences of association with Dosso 
and of acquaintance with Mantegna's works. 

The young painter in his native town ; the Court 
of Correggio and its intimacy with Mantua ; 
friendship and patronage of Veronica Gam- 
bara ; Madonna of St. Francis and other works 
previous to 15 18. 


The period of transition ; development of an in- 
dividual style ; Correggio's isolation in art. 

Correggio in Parma, 1518-1530; Convent San 
Paolo and its frescos ; key-note of the general 
design ; the putti ; allegorical figures in grisaille ; 
adaptation of the decorative ideas of an earlier 
master; Correggio's daintiness of thought and 

Early easel pictures in Parma — Madonna della 
Cesta, Marriage of St. Catherine and others. 

Frescos in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista 
cupola, tribune, lunette (15 19-1524); serious- 
ness and dignity of the conception; the painter's 
daring originality — violation of the traditional 
treatment of dome decoration; boldness and 
vigor of his figure drawing; Correggio at his 
artistic zenith. 

Altarpieces for San Giovanni — Martyrdom of 
Placidus and Flavia, Descent from the Cross. 

Psychological significance of Correggio's types; 
idealization of faces ; compare youthful angels 
with those of Raphael and other painters. 

The step beyond — frescos in the Cathedral of 
Parma, cupola, pendentives, balustrade (1526- 
1530); alternation of designs in color and in 
grisaille here and in San Giovanni ; similarity 
of subject in the two domes. 

Extent to which Correggio carried illusion ; artis- 
tic loss involved in realistic foreshortening ; an 
artistic descendant of Melozzo da Forli ; Cor- 
regio's mastery of aerial perspective ; effects of 
light and shade; delicacy of color scheme; 
richness and fusion of technique. 

Late altarpieces; Madonna with St. Sebastian; 
Madonna with St. Jerome, Madonna della Sco- 
della, Nativity (La Notte), Madonna with St. 


George; beauty and poetic quality of his re- 
ligious pictures; abandonment to art for art's 

Discussion concerning the authenticity of the 

Reading Magdalene. 

The artist's retirement to Correggio (1530); his 
latest work; frankness and delicacy of his 
treatment of subjects from pagan mythology — 
the unmoral character of his creations; Edu- 
cation of Cupid, lo, Ganymede and others. 

Correggio's school at Parma and his influence on 
succeeding art. 

Topics for Further Research . 

The decoration of domes and apsed ceilings ; 

difficulties and successful solutions. 
The city of Parma. 
Religious sisterhoods in the Italian Renaissance ; 

San Paolo and its nuns. (Ricci 155-158.) 

Greek stories : Ganymede, Jupiter and lo, 

Paolo Toschi, Correggio's interpreter. 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 3700b —Adoration of the Magi 

An early work recently transferred from the Archbishop's 
Palace in Milan to the Brera collection. 

Is sincerity the dominant note? What part does 
Joseph play in the scene .^ Is Oriental life touched in a 
realistic way ? What suggestions about the ruined archi- 
tecture that show loving study of such subjects ? 

Interpret the character of Madonna. What criticism 
may be passed on the Child ? Is the drawing clear and 
distinct ? Are the features lacking in definiteness ? Give 
examples of both methods. Which is most effective ? 

Had Correggio's style developed when this picture 
was painted? Are there resemblances to Leonardo's 


followers? Cf. 3102^,3160^. Had he attained to un- 
usual skill in delineation of landscape for this period ? 
Compare Sodoma, Francia and Costa, with dates. What 
representations of this scene have been more actual ? In 
what does it consist ? 

No. 3702b — Madonna, Child and Angels. 

Small panel, in perfect preservation. It has been attributed 
to Mantegna, the Ferrarese School and to Titian. Morelli's 
opinion that it is a valuable early example of Correggio is now 
generally accepted. 

What engages the Child's attention ? Can you recall 
a conception at once so natural and so appropriate to 
divinity.^ Is there equal concentration on the part of 
others in the picture ? Can the same earnest attention 
be found in other representations of the Christ-child by 
Correggio } Does this Child resemble, in form and 
modeling, others in this artist's work ? Is Madonna a 
Corregesque type? Compare 3210**. What resem- 
blances between the two pictures ? What comparison in 
treatment of hair with 3064^? In what different ways 
has Correggio suggested cloud-land and depth of 
space? What indication that this is an early work? 
What elements suggest this artist's later work ? 

No. 3710b — Section of Ceiling. 
No. 3711b — Diana. 
No. 3712b -. Medallion. 

Convent San Paolo. 

Frescos painted in 1518 for the " Camera di San Paolo," a 

room in the private suite of Donna Giovanna Piacenza, Abbess 

of the chapter of Benedictine nuns. The room is nearly square ; 

from its cornice sixteen ribs converge to the center of the 

domed ceiling. The surface of the vaulting simulates a trellis 

wound with vines, fruit and flowers ; oval openings are painted 

in the verdure disclosing putti at play with hounds and weapons 

of the chase. The idea was evidently borrowed from Mantegna's 

frescos in the Camera degli Sposi, in the Ducal Residence at 

Mantua. So, also, the peculiar technique — the paint laid on in 

short strokes. 


At the junction of the ribbed divisions and the cornice are 
painted lunettes, in grisaille, each containing an allegorical 
figure. Similar alternations of colors and monochrome were 
used in the two Parmese churches painted by Correggio. The 
painted decoration was continued below the cornice in sem- 
blance of drapery, with cups and flagons of silver. 

Over the fireplace was painted Diana, mounting her car drawn 
by two hinds. The crescent moon, her symbol, was in the 
Abbess' Coat-of-Arms. 

What appropriateness in these subjects to the charac- 
ter of the place decorated ? Were Correggio's own 
tastes responsible for the choice and development of the 
theme ? In what spirit are they carried out ? What 
marks the Christian artist ? What other examples of a 
similar spirit may be recalled ? How explained ? 

What connection between the scenes in the lunettes ? 
Is the composition scientifically adapted to the space ? 
Are the lines flowing ? Is there any awkwardness ? 
What lines in pictorial composition tend to strength and 
what to weakness ? To which class does this belong ? Is 
the modeling of the putto fleshlike ? Does it resemble 
the Child in 3702^? Has it more or less of the expres- 
sion of human feeling than 3767^? Is the faun character 
suggested ? 

How far does Diana suggest the classic goddess? 
What differences are there ? Is this the ideal of femi- 
nine beauty afterward developed by Correggio ? Are her 
draperies handled with taste and knowledge? 

In what does the charm of this decoration consist ? 
Does it lack any qualities essential to good decoration ? 
What historical significance in the selection of such a 
theme ? 

No. 3726^ — The Marriage of St. Catherine. 

3.6x3.4. Painted for the art-loving Grillenzoni family of 
Modena, probably between 1518 and 1520. St. Sebastian appears 
behind St. Catherine, and the martyrdoms of both saints are 
dimly seen in the background. 


Cf. 3700^, 3702*^. In what particulars is this an 
advance ? Is the artist's style fully matured — 1. e.^ has 
he anything to gain in technical excellence ? Is it an 
equally reverential treatmopt of a sacred theme ? What 
is the character of the Child's interest ? Is St. Cather- 
ine's devotion intense, ecstatic ? Cf. the Magdalen in 


Where is the attention of the group directed ? Is there 

any diverting interest ? Of how many of Correggio's 

pictures is this true ? 

By what symbols or circumstances is St. Catherine 
known ? Is either one sufficient for identification with- 
out the others ? How is St. Sebastian identified here ? 

When a landscape background does not connect with 
the foreground, does it add to the effectiveness of a 
picture ? Does this landscape explain the scene or in 
any way amplify its meaning ? 

Compare the arrangement of figures with groups by 
Fra Bartolommeo, Raphael and other artists: 3427^, 
3317^* 3253^' What is lost by the less regular form 
of grouping ? Compare the painting of hair, modeling 
of flesh, treatment of drapery with Raphael's methods. 
Which has the greater facility in use of the brush? 
Which is the more modern ? Is Correggio's ideal of 
beauty a common one ? Is it one generally accepted ? 

No. 3717b — The Savior : detail. 
No. 3718b — St Thomas and St. James Minor. 

Note: Observe the difference in these two reproductions — 
one from the original fresco, the other from Toschi's water- 
color copy of what would otherwise be unintelligible in repro- 

The decoration of the interior of the dome of San Giovanni 
Evangelista consists of a single subject simple in conception — 
the Vision of the Evangelist. Christ is ascending into heaven ; 
in a grandly sweeping circle, around him are the eleven Apostles, 
colossal figures, slightly draped — seated on clouds, looking 


after him ; sporting around and through the clouds are bands of 
child-angels, who serve as connecting links between the groups. 
Below, in the pendentives, are Evangelists and fathers of the 
Church seated in conference on clouds upheld by youthful 
angels. Monochrome decorations complete the scheme on 
Cornice and Friezes. The work was executed 1 520-1 524. 

How are these figures meant to be seen ? What 
movement is indicated by the Savior's position? Cf. 
3545^, 1841**. Which best conveys the idea? Cf. 
1842^. Which is the most satisfactory drawing of the 
head ? Are there reasons in 3545^ for a different man- 
ner of representation ? What has Correggio gained and 
what sacrificed in his representation ? Would you 
visualize a heavenly vision in this way ? 

What space is represented beyond and above the 
Savior ? What effect has this treatment upon the archi- 
tecture of the dome ? Is this principle valid ? 

Is the substance of the clouds firm enough to sustain 
the Apostles ? Is there any doubt of the artists* inten- 
tion to represent clouds ? Do they resemble any other 
substance ? Was this necessary in order to satisfy the 
imagination ? How was this done by Raphael ? Cf. 
3435^, 3545^. Is the principal thought in connection 
with the Apostles, spiritual or physical? Cf. 3501^, 
Does the physical oppose or help the emotional ? In 
3718 is the impression unalloyed by weakness ? By the 
question of appropriateness ? Is the sportive disposition 
of the putti a disturbing element ? Do they attract the 
attention of the Apostles? What effect has that cir- 
cumstance on the sentiment of the composition ? 

No. 3723^ — St. John Evangelist at Patmoa. 

Lunette over a small door in one of the transepts. 
How is St. John employed ? Why is he represented as 
youthful ? How far successful is Correggio in represent- 
ing masculine types ? In expressing ecstasy or spiritual 
uplift? Cf. 3717^,3718^. 


Why is the eagle present ? What is suggested by its 
action ? 

Compare with Andrea del Sartors lunette, 3335**. Are 
the positions equally natural and graceful? Which is 
the loftier conception, the more religious ? Is the semi- 
circular space equally well filled ? In which are the 
artifices of pictorial composition most obvious ? Has 
Correggio cared for decorative line ? Has he secured 

beauty ? 

No. 3716b_ — AsBumption of the^ Virgin: 

Detail of Cupola of the Cathedral. 

The general scheme of decoration of this Cupola is similar to 
that of San Giovanni. Clouds, carrying innumerable angel 
forms in their soft depths encircle a central space of clear air 
against which is relieved the form of one of the angelic throng 
descending to meet the Virgin. Resting on the cornice at the 
base of the dome is a simulated balustrade before which are 
ranged apostles and youthful genii. In the pendentives are 
painted four saints. The whole heavenly vision is instinct with 
ecstatic movement. 

These frescos date from 1525-1530, and comprise only a part 
of the commission given to Correggio ; the work was inter- 
rupted by his retirement to his native town and never com- 

Are individual forms easily followed out and explained? 
Do all assist in the expression of the thought ? Could it 
have been expressed with fewer ? Are ease and grace 
emphasized ? Is there sense of effort on the artist's 
part ? Is it restful for the spectator ? Is there any 
feeling for decorative pattern ? Is there more for har- 
mony of line than elsewhere in Correggio's work ? 

Compare with other Assumptions^ — 3328^, 3215^, 
3130^, 1775^ . In which is the upward movement most 
irresistible, swift? In which the gesture of the Virgin 
most expressive ? Which makes the strongest appeal to 
your sense of the fitness of things ? Which is the most 
sympathetic ? In which is technical skill most evident ? 
What is the relation of technique to artistic excellence ? 


No. 3714b — Venus, Mercury and Cupid. 

(Also called The Education of Cupid.) 

5. 1 X 3 feet ; figures nearly life size. Painted before the fres- 
cos of the Cathedral were undertaken, it remained in the Man- 
tuan Collection until 1630. Since then it has been in England, 
Spain, Italy and Austria, returning at length to England. In- 
juries received during these extensive journeyings have necessi- 
tated considerable restoration. 

What is Cupid doing ? Is this a natural childish 
action? Explain his attitude. Compare with other 
winged bodies — angels and cherubs. Is this different ? 
Why does Mercury assume the role of teacher ? 

Has Correggio created a new t3rpe in Venus ? Has 
she any unfamiliar accessory ? How does this artist's 
study of the nude differ from that of others ? What are 
its excellences ? Is the painting of Cupid's hair marked 
by unusual care ? Does it look labored ? Is it similar 
to that done by Leonardo's followers ? 

Is this work Greek in theme and spirit ? What effect 
has the artist sought ? 

A Group of Altarpiecea Painted between 1522 and 1530. 

The following five religious pictures, all painted after the 
beginning of the frescos in San Giovanni Evangelista, repre- 
sent the culminating point of Correggio*s genius. While at 
first glance there appears to be a close similarity, further atten- 
tion shows that each embodies a distinct idea in no way derived 
from the others and that each is devoted to the solution of a 
particular problem. 

No. 3734 — Adoration of the Shepherds. 

Known also as La Notte (Holy Night). Commissioned in 
1522 for the Church of San Prosper©, Reggio. One of the 
considerable number of pictures obtained surreptitiously or by 
force by the Dukes of Modena and sold to foreign buyers. In 
this category belong 3728b and 3743^ . 

What is the source of light ? Is there only one ? Is 
the light consistently distributed ? What evidences of its 
brilliancy ? Has the picture any other interest as strong 


as this technical problem ? Has Correggio's success been 
surpassed ? Can you recall other instances, in or not in 
our course of study where a similar motif has been 
treated ? 

What is the spiritual temper of the picture? How 
many details of the Scripture story are introduced ? In 
what other ways has the artist made his work attractive ? 
Does the fame of the picture rest on such grounds as to 
ensure its permanent popularity ? 

No. 3730^ — Madonna with St. Jerome. 

On wood, 4.8x6.10. 
Known as II Giorno (The Day), because of the brilliant light 
that floods the picture. A votive picture commissioned in 1523 
and placed in the Church of San Antonio, Parma. It was 
carried to France in 1796 but returned to Parma in 1815. 

Where is the interest of the picture centered ? Are the 
artistes interest and the spectators' the same ? Has the 
Child's intentness of expression been equaled in other 
pictures by Correggio 1 Is it confined to the Child's 
face } Is the angel found elsewhere ? 

Are new types of beauty introduced ? Is the Magda- 
len satisfactorily characterized ? Is her movement 

natural .? 

Compare this with other representations of St. Jerome : 

3770^, 21 49^ , 1759^, etc. What special appropriateness 

in Correggio's ? Is this a correctly drawn figure ? 

Why is the background arranged thus ? How has the 

artist intensified the impression of air and illumination ? 

How does the landscape compare with Perugino's in 

delicacy and suggestiveness ? 

No. 3733i> •— Madonna della Scodella. 

On wood, 7.3 X 4.6. Painted for the Church of San Sepolcro, 
Parma. The frame, of which a part is shown in the reproduc- 
tion, in which the picture has again found its place after many 
vicissitudes, is the original one made after Correggio's design. 
The painting illustrates a legendary incident in the return of 


the Holj Family from Egypt. Stopping to rest in the desert, 
angels bent down the palm tree until the fruit was within 
Joseph's reach ; and a stream of water miraculously flowed at 
their feet. The name of the picture refers to the bowl in Ma- 
donna's hand. Over-cleaning has injured the upper group. 

How are the action of Joseph and the Child to be 
explained ? How old is Jesus ? Why is he represented 
thus ? How long did the Holy Family remain in Egypt ? 
Is it customary for Joseph to be so active in his ministra- 
tions ? Is there a reason ? Has this scene a devotional 
character ? 

Are the angels exerting strength ? Would the scene 
be more or less supernatural in proportion to the visible 
force ? 

What is the character of the draperies ? Is it equally 
true of Correggio*s early and late work ? To what part 
of the picture is attention most strongly attracted ? Why ? 

No. 3728t> — Madonna with St Sebastian. 

On wood, 8.10x5.6. Painted in 1525 for the chapel of the 
brotherhood of St. Sebastian, at Modena. Besides St. Sebas- 
tian, St. Geminianus, and St. Roch in pilgrim's dress attend Ma- 

No. 3743b — Madonna with St. George. 

Painted about 1530 for the brotherhood of St. Peter Martyr at 
Modena. John the Baptist and St. Jerome are present together 
with St. George and St. Peter Martyr. 

This painting and 3728b were sold to Augustus III. of Poland, 
Elector of Saxony, the founder of the Dresden Gallery. 

Study the arrangement of figures in both pictures. 
Which is more successful ? Why ? Is either conven- 
tional ? What means does Correggio use to draw atten- 
tion to the central theme ? What means have other 
artists used? Which is more successful ? Does 3726^ 
suffer because our attention is not solicited ? What 
effect is produced by figures that look out of the picture 
, frame? Compare the saints in 3530^. 

Which of these two, 3728^ or 3743^, is the more 


restful? In what does the difference consist? Does 
the other lack life and vigor ? What constitutes restless- 
ness in a work of art ? 

In 3728^ what reason is there for associating these 
three saints ? Why are they variously occupied ? Why 
is St. Sebastian's expression more ecstatic than the 
others ? Have all the putti a serious function to per- 
form? How is this reminiscent of the San Giovanni 
frescos ? 

How is the position of Madonna in 3743^ to be ex- 
plained ? What peculiarity common to the youthful fig- 
ure on the left and to the corresponding figure in 3730^ ? 
Is it to be found in other figures in these two pictures ? 
What was the development of Correggio's art ? Does it 
appear here ? What preceding artist is recalled by the 
decorative accessories in the upper part of the picture ? 

No. 3746^ — Cupids sharpening Axtowb. 

Detail of Danae. 

Several of Correggio's mythological pictures, including 
Danae and notably the Leda, have traveled over nearly the 
entire extent of Europe; Spain, Austria, Sweden, France, Eng- 
land, and more than once Italy have each furnished them a 
resting place. A proof of and perhaps in part a reason for the 
general admiration with which this artist's works were regarded. 

What is the attitude of the Cupids toward their work ? 
Is this characteristic of children ? Are they studies from 
classic sculpture or from life ? What side of child-life 
appealed especially to Correggio ? Are they ever unnat- 
ural in his pictures ? Are they monotonously alike ? 

No. 3747b — Ganymede. 

Canvas, 5.6 X 2.4. The youth is a duplication of one in the 
frescos of the Parma Cathedral. The fact that in no other 
instance has Correggio repeated himself, coupled with certain 
inconsistencies in the details of the picture, has given rise to the 
suspicion that this panel is by a clever imitator, although the 
quality of the work makes the acceptance of such an idea diffi- 


Does the mutual hold of the youth and the eagle seem 
secure ? How does the bird reassure the boy? Is the 
situation painful to the spectator? Do we feel any appre- 
hension concerning the youthful angels in Correggio's 
dome frescos? Why? What is the direction of flight 
as indicated by the draperies ? Is it consistent with the 
impression derived from the bird ? 

Does the landscape differ in subject or in execution 
from Correggio's other paintings ? 

Is the dog an essential part of the narrative ? Is its 
introduction from the pictorial point of view ? 

No. 3748b — Jupiter and lo. 

According to the myth, Jupiter assumes the form of a cloud 
which envelops lo in its embrace. 

Is this picture conceived in the classic spirit or is 
there an added element of romance ? Is there a hint of 
the Madonna type ? How does it compare in intellectual 
suggestion with the nymph in 3767^? 

What portions of the myth are emphasized ? Is Cor- 
reggio's treatment of pagan myth coarse or repellent? 
How does he compare with Raphael in this ? Compare 
also Botticelli's mythological pictures. What elements 
does each artist select ? Are the differences those of 
period, of training, of individuality, of spirit, or of 
technique alone ? 

Is there a flavor of self-consciousness here ? In what 
does the beauty of the work consist ? Is the treatment 
of the form broad and summary, or has attention been 
paid to detail ? 

General Questions. 

Does a systematic or formal style of composition or 
formation of groups characterize Correggio's work ? 
How does he compare with Raphael in this respect ?. 

Is there any lack of seriousness in his saintly persons ? 
Are his mythological characters trifling? What is the 


quality of joyousness that animates his youthful angels 
and putti ? In general, what is the moral quality of his 
work ? 

Does he aim at the display of skill and cleverness ? 
Does he express unworthy ideas ? Is his work distin- 
guished for its intellectual content ? By its emotional 
character ? Should one exclude the other ? 

Is sentimentality ever present ? Is beauty ever absent ? 
Was he much concerned with textures ? Is there lack of 
variety in that respect ? Does his drapery ever attract 
attention ? 

Are Correggio's children natural, full of life and 
vigor ? Have they individuality and potential force of 
character ? Are they abnormal in any respect ? 

Is there anything in Correggio's work to suggest 
Leonardo's influence ? 


3700^. . . Milan — Brera. Adoration of the Magi. 

3702b. . . Florence — Uffizi. Madonna, Child and Angels. 

37iot> . . . Parma — Convent S. Paolo. Section of Ceiling. 

371 il>. . . Convents. Paolo. Diana. 

3712b, . . Convent S. Paolo. Ceiling. Medallion. 

3714b. . . London — National Gallery. Venus, Mercury, and 

3716b. . . Parma — Cathedral. Section of Cupola, interior. 
3717b. . . Parma — S. Giovanni Evangelista, Cupola. The 

Savior ; detail (from copy by Toschi). 
3718b ... S. Giovanni Evangelista, Cupola. St. 

Thomas and St. James Minor. 
3723b ... S. Giovanni Evangelista, transept, lunette. 

St. John Evangelist at Patmos. 
3726b . . , Paris, Louvre. Marriage of St. Catherine. 
3728b . . . Dresden — Gallery. Madonna of St. Sebastian. 
3730b. . , Parma — Gallery. Madonna of St. Jerome (II 

3733^ • • • Gallery. Madonna della Scodella. 

3734b . . . Dresden — Gallery. Adoration of the Shepherds 
I (La Notte). 

I 3743^ • • • Gallery. Madonna with St. George. 

! 50 

374^^' • • Roifie, Borghese. Cupids sharpening arrows : detail 

of Danae. " 
3747b . . . Vienna — Imperial. Gallery. Jupiter and lo. 

Art Journal . . v. 34. 348. 

Berenson .... Study and Criticism of Italian Art. v. I. 20- 

Blashfield .... Italian Cities, v. i, 257-296. 

Brown Fine Arts. §171; §180. 

Century Magazine. 1892. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Fagan The works of Correggio at Parma, 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 265-267. 

Grimm Michael Angelo. v. II. 198-204, 

Heaton Correggio. 

Heaton History of Painting. 177-180. 

Knackfuss ^ . . Kiinstler-Monographien. Correggio. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 626-637. 

London Society, v. 43. 444-452. 

Magazine of Art — 1885. v. 8. 410-415. 

Masters in Art — 1900, December. Part 24. 

Meyer Antonio Allegri da Correggio. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 120-136. 

Morelli Italian Painters. v. I. 223-228; v. 11. 


MUntz La fin de la Renaissance. 567-581. 

Portfolio .... V. 19. 30-35; 56-63. 

Ricci Antonio Allegri da Correggio. 

Stillman .... Old Italian Masters. 277-282. 

Symonds . . . Fine Arts. 339-342. 

Symonds .... Sketches and Studies, v. II. 147-162. 

Van Rensselaer. Six Portraits. 77-112. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 14-37- 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 584- 


IL PARMIGIANNINO (Francesco Mazzola). 1504-1540. 

Outline for Study. 

Paimigiannino's native ability; effect upon his 
work of Correggio's overmastering influence. 


The eregjtnce and artificiarity of his types ib 

works of the imagination. 
His portraiture and its claims- to adniratton. 
His engravings. 

Questions on Special Pieture. 

No. 3750^ ^MadoDiuu Cbild and Angels. 

6.6x4.if. Painted in Parmay 1534, f^** E^ena Taglafimi; 
although unfinished it was hung, after the painter^'s death, in the 
family chapel at the Servites. 

£xp}am Madonna's position. Is it easj and restful? 
What would be the effect if the pedestal were larger ? 
What peculiarities in the drawing ? Are they warranted 
by natural forms ? Are they in the interest of beauty ? 
Of elegance ? What distinction may be made between 
beauty and elegance? Are they individualities of the 
artist ? Or inspired by Correggio I 

How are the faces at the left explained? Is the 
child completely relaxed ? Is the sentiment of the pic- 
ture religious or otherwise ? 

Why is the column in the background ? Who is the 
draped figure back of Madonna ? What purpose does it 
serve? Are there any discrepancies? What claim has 
the picture to admiration ? 


3750^. . . Florence — Pitti, Madonna, Child and Angels. 


Kugler ..... Italian Schools, v. II. 637-639. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 581-582. 

Ricci Antonio Allegri da Correggio. 373-376. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 594- 



Number Thirteen. 


Correggio stands for two distinct things in art — things 
not only separable, but almost incompatible. Perhaps 
we may call them a manner and a thought. On the one 
hand is the way he has of putting things ; on the other 
hand, the thing he has to put. Theoretically there is 
no conflict between manner and matter in art any more 
than between language and thought in literature. The 
one is obviously the servant of the other. It is- only 
when the manner is not suited to the matter, or, again, 
when manner becomes too interesting, attracting atten- 
tion away from matter, that the two are at feud. The 
cases in which speech has been wholly subservient to 
thought, in which phrases have never done duty instead 
of ideas, are few in art. The history of Correggio is 
typical of the struggle between these two interests. 

The vision of Correggio is one of the simplest and 
purest in art. It is manifest in the cupids of San Paolo 
at Parma, but is seen at its best in some of his large 
religious paintings, such as the Madonna of St. Sebas- 
tian, in Dresden. Nothing can surpass the child 
beauty and grace of these charming figures, whose glee- 
ful frolic is the purest suggestion of happiness to be found 
in all art. In madness of joy they career around the 
Madonna, herself a child in spirit scarce less than them- 
selves, and pay homage to the Christ-child as to a king 
of the elves. It is a long way from these elfin sprites to 
the solemn thought of the Christian world and the bode- 
ful beings of Christian art. Here is no premonition of 
the cross, no pondering on the world's sin and pain. 
These creatures of Correggio's fancy disport themselves 
as of old the fairies flitted from flower to flower on a 
dewy morn in the childhood of the world. 

Not, however, until we approach the more serious 
moral themes, do we appreciate how utterly the art of 
Correggio belongs to this child-age of the world. In 
the dangerous realm of pagan myth he bore a charmed 
life. The stories of Leda, of Danae, of Jupiter and lo 
are not edifying to the moral sense. In the work of 
other artists they are usually gross, always offensive to 
the sensitive and the pure. The marvel is, why they are 
not so in the work of Correggio. Perhaps the secret is 
to be found in the enduring childhood with which he 
endows his creations. They never outgrow their inno- 
cent guilelessness ** nor lose the childlike in the larger 
mind." Hence their wantonness seems playful, a thing 
not to be taken seriously, a reminiscence of the time 
when the race was unfettered by conscience and followed 
impulse without shamefacedness or sin. It is no lapse 
from the stern requirements of our modern virtue; it 
brings no penalty, demands no expiation. And in this 
freedom from moral discipline and moral consciousness 
lies no small part of Correggio's art. Our moral obliga- 
tions are wholesome and necessary, the condition of all 
highest good and all permanent happiness. But in them- 
selves these obligations are not attractive, and th^ 
scourge of conscience, however wholesome, is none the 
less a scourge. The strain of self-restraint and self- 
correction is a wearying one, and no one of us is so com- 
mitted to the moral life that he does not tire at times of 
the exactions of conscience. Hence this delight in the 
guilelessness of childhood, in the innocence that wanders 
unknowingly in forbidden paths, that trespasses and needs 
not to be ashamed. Correggio has struck one of the 
truest and most permanent chords in our nature in por- 
traying this ideal guilelessness, this blissful unconscious- 
ness of evil or restraint which is emphasized by the very 
deeds of darkness which in this charmed world of his 
fancy have no need to shun the light. 

But while the unrelenting claims of righteousness lay 
upon us a certain constant burden of weariness, and 
breed within us a continual smouldering spirit of revolt, 
righteousness is to us all the supremely beautiful thing. 
The satisfaction which we derive from our moments of 
abandon or from our musing as to what pleasure were 
ours if conscience would withdraw its ban, is, after all, a 
feeble pleasure compared with the satisfaction of moral 
achievement and the attainment of our moral ideal. 
The beauty of childhood's happy hours appeals to us all, 
and at times seems the supremely lovable thing. But 
after all, no one seriously wishes he could be a child 
again or struggles to forget the lessons of manhood. 
The enduring, inspiring ideals, the beauty that triumphs 
over all other charms, these lie not behind but before; 
they reflect not the weakness and weariness, but the 
strength and heroism of the soul. No message from 
fairyland can have for us the interest or the charm that 
we find in the deeper note of sympathy for our great 
struggle and in the prophecy of our ultimate triumph. 

The technical achievements of Correggio are fore- 
shadowed in some of his earliest works in Parma, no- 
tably in the frescoes on the little dome of San Paolo. 
The achievements of earlier masters in this line will be 
recalled. From the time when the great mosaics of the 
Middle Ages had gone out of style and the more picto- 
rial fresco with its perspective and its realistic portrayals 
had come into vogue, the decoration of domes, apses, 
etc., seems to have been little attempted. The difficul- 
ties were too great. It is difficult to paint a picture on 
a flat, upright surface and make all the figures take their 
proper place and stand and group themselves as they 
should. When the surface tips forward, and, still more, 
when it is converging and irregular, these difficulties are 
greatly increased. To spread the figures upon this 
inclined, converging or irregular surface complicates the 


angle of vision, distorts the figures and quite destroys the 
illusion, which the picture painter wishes to produce. 

The mediaeval artists found their own way out of the 
difficulty. They recognized the fact that these surfaces 
were ill-adapted for pictures and, further, that their shape 
was too important to be modified or artistically dis- 
guised. So they ultimately gave up pictures altogether, 
dropped perspective, arranged their figures to fit the 
surfaces quite without reference to nature or realistic 
effects. In a word, they ceased to make pictures on 
these ill-adapted surfaces and made simple decorations 
instead. This was by all means the best thing to do, 
and as studies in appropriate and adapted art the great 
mosaics far surpass their most ambitious rivals of the 
Renaissance. But the later artists would have pictures 
at any cost. If the surfaces would not take pictures, 
then so much the worse for the surfaces. At first such 
surfaces were ignored. Then bit by bit as skill increased 
the pictorialist went forth conquering and to conquer. 

Progress was slow until Melozzo da Forli made his 
epoch-making discovery. This, it will be remembered, 
consisted in the application of foreshortening to correct 
the incline or irregularity of these surfaces. It was a 
familiar fact that on an upright surface foreshortening 
could make a figure lean backward. Then on a surface 
that leans forward foreshortening can obviously make a 
figure stand upright. By carefully calculating the angles 
in question the proper corrective could be applied to all 
parts of a surface, however irregular. The fragments 
of Melozzo's work, now exhibited in the Sacristy of St. 
Peter's, show how effectively he applied this principle. 

But in thus placing the figures erect the problem was 
not solved. Thus placed, they would seem to stand on 
air, a possible thing for angels and a limited number of 
traditional figures, but on the whole a limited achieve- 
ment. Could the principle be so applied as to carry up 


from the upright side walls a consistent and erect sys- 
tem of supports so as to give the whole a sense of re- 
pose ? Thus Michelangelo had stated the problem, and 
the Sistine ceiling was his solution of it. This marvel 
of the Renaissance was in its first glory in Correggio's 
time and its fame must have fired his ambition, though 
he seems never to have seen it. Certain it is, he ap- 
proaches the problem in an entirely different way. 

The little dome of San Paolo was low and exception- 
ally ill-suited to the painter's purpose. The surfaces are 
heavily inclined and too near to allow of the most impos- 
ing effects. To paint figures dangling from the top 
would have been infelicitous ; to erect stately supports 
by painter's art was impossible. The place needs room, 
space, and the figures need support. Both are secured 
by an ingenious device not unknown in art before Cor- 
reggio's time but never before handled with such skill. 
He contents himself with merely decorating the main 
surface of the dome, but by clever painting he opens 
through it a complete circle of oval windows around its 
lower circumference. Through these windows we seem 
to look out at the sky. But attention centers on a charm- 
ing series of cupids who are playing with implements 
and trophies of the chase. These are outside, or more 
often they sit on the edge of the window openings, hang-- 
ing their feet inside and displaying their exquisite bodies 
in all the charming attitudes which child-life can suggest. 
This is a new and daring application of Melozzo's prin- 
ciple, the figures being neither suspended from the dome 
nor standing on air, but seeming rather to stand or sit 
on top of the dome. Yet the whole is accomplished by 
painting its inner surface. 

The next step in this wonderful evolution is to be 
fQund in the great dome of St. John the Evangelist in 
Parma. This cutting of window openings through the 
dome seems to have set Correggio to thinking. If part of 


a dome could be painted away why not all of it ? That 
is precisely what is done in the great dome. Whether 
this is a good thing for the dome is another question. 
It may be urged in extenuation that the stilted domes of 
the Renaissance do not show off well inside, that the 
spectator, looking from below, sees them foreshortened, 
thus losing the sense of height and feeling, unduly, the 
shut-in-ness of the top. Hence, however imposing they 
may be without, they look low and undignified within. 
The painter, therefore, who broke through their low- 
lying ceiling only corrected a defect. 

Correggio's theme is the Ascension of Christ. By a 
vaporous atmosphere he completely obliterates the walls 
and ceiling of the dome and the imagination soars to 
the dizzy heights in which the figure of the Christ is 
seen vanishing. These soaring figures require no sup- 
port and, logically at least, there is no inconsistency in 
converting the barrel of the dome into a telescope 
through which we survey their distant flight. Around the 
base of the dome sit the Apostles, figures of rare beauty 
and dignity, which we miss in the painter's later work. 

The magical cleverness of the painter was not without 
its disadvantages. If we are dumbfounded to look 
through solid walls into miles of distance and to see the 
vanishing figure of Christ in such marvellous foreshort- 
ening, the view of dangling legs and fluttering garments 
is not inspiring. This extravagant realism suggests the 
danger of taking such themes too literally. Left to our 
own devices, we can imagine the scene from a celestial 
or at least from a horizontal point of view, and can con- 
fine ourselves to its dignified aspect. But drafted into 
service to open up roofs and convert domes into telescopes, 
the whole thing becomes cheap and undignified. 

But there was a higher height and a lower depth. Cor- 
reggio's cleverness was not yet exhausted and, on the 
other hand, his bathos was not yet complete. In the 


dome of the cathedral hard by we have his crowning 
achievement and his uttermost failure. It is the repeti- 
tion of the previous dome, but with every characteristic 
exaggerated. The theme is the Assumption of the Vir- 
gin. Vaster are the reaches of the upward straining 
gaze toward the empyrean where throngs of the heavenly 
host soar upward with the scarce distinguishable Virgin, 
and vanish as specks in the dissolving ether. Spectators 
throng below and turn their startled gaze upward toward 
the overpowering scene. Cleverness is redundant, prod- 
igal, surfeiting. But dignity has vanished and serious 
meaning is ignored. Men are not intended to be looked 
at from below. The whole thing smacks of the circus, 
and the useless legs of* the suspended throng are pain- 
fully suggestive of the trapeze. It is the apotheosis of 
cleverness and the degradation of art. 

In the prosecution of these technical studies Correggio 
was not merely misdirecting his energies and missing the 
chance of nobler achievement; he was withdrawing 
attention from problems previously mastered, and sacri 
ficing gains already secured. It is sad to think what pic- 
tures he might have painted while he was executing this 
tour deforce in defiance of architectural sobriety and dig- 
nity of feeling and thought. It is still sadder to discover 
that the pictures he actually did paint during this period 
lack his earlier charm, and, like the frescoes themselves, 
are unworthy strivings after prodigies of effect. The 
exquisite figures that charm us in the Madonna of St. 
Sebastian are replaced in the later Madonna of St. George 
by heavy, coarse figures, unworthy of even a third- 
class painter. The picture indeed shows marvellous 
advance in chiaroscuro and technical skill, but the artist 
has ceased to care for the fairy folk of his inspired youth. 
Correggio began as an artist and ended as a technician. 
This is the pitfall of the student, the bane of art. How 
rarely does the artist remain the master of his own clev- 
erness and constrain it to the service of worthy ideals ? 

Special »iMtOGrapbi5. 

Number Thirteen. 

The bibliography of Michelangelo, like that of Raphael, is so 
extensive as to necessitate the selection of only a small part for 
our purpose. The more complete biographies make a consider- 
able demand upon the reader's time. Each has individual 
claims upon the student's attention ; but if one or two must be 
selected we suggest that the choice fall upon Symonds', published 
1893, or Holroyd's, 1903. Symonds' work in two volumes, 
based on documents and autographic manuscripts held in the 
Buonarroti family, is of especial value, while his critical esti- 
mate of the work of artists inspires no less confidence than 

The two contemporary biographies are by Condivi, who was 
Michelangelo's assistant during his last years and wrote under 
the master's supervision; and by Vasari, who was a personal 
friend and warm admirer. 

Condivi's brief account forms the first part of Holroyd's book 
and is followed by the author's own comments on Michel- 
angelo's works. Vasari's compilation, in the Blashfield edition 
of his ** Lives," is incalculably enhanced in value by the notes of 
the accomplished editors. . 

Clement, C. Michelangelo. III. London, Low, 1891. 
3s. 6d. 

Gazette des Beauz Arts. Seven Essays. Published in 
book form under the title, L'CBuvre et la Vie de Michel Ange. 
Paris, 1876. 

Gower, Ronald (Lord). Michael Angelo Buonarroti 
Great Masters Series. III. London, Bell, 190'^. $1.75. 

Harford, John Scandrett. Life of Michael Angelo 
Buonarroti: also Memoirs of Savonarola, Raphael and 
Vittoria Colonna. 2 v. London, Longmans, 1858. 25s. 

Holroyd, Charles. Michael Angelo Buonarroti. III. 
N. Y., Scribner, 1903. $2.00. 
See Introductory Notice. 

Hyett, Francis A. Florence, her history and her art. 

N. Y., Dutton, 1903. $2.50. 

This compilation from many sources forms an able, interesting and well- 
rounded historical essay which should be found on every art student's shelf. 

Klaczko, Julian. Rome and the Renaissance : the Pon- 
tificate of Julius II. Tr. bj' John Dennie. N. Y., Putnam, 

1903- $3-50. 

A book of fascinating interest. Itself a sympathetic review of the period 
named, it has found a no less sympathetic and learned translator. The sub- 
ject is considered with especial reference to the Pope's patronage of art and his 
relations with Michael Angelo. 


KnackfuBB, H. Michelangelo. Monographs on Artists. 
111. N. Y., Lemcke and Buechner, 1895. $1.50. 

Landon, Charles Paul. Vies et oeuvres des peintrea les 

plus celebres. v. i. 111. Paris, 181 1. 

Milanesi, G. (ed). Les Correspondants de Michel Ange 1, 
Seb. del Piombo. Paris, Librairie de 1' Art, 1890. 

Muiitz, £. Une rivalite d' artistes au XVI^ Siecle ; 
Michel Ange et Raphael^ la Cour de Rome. Paris, 1887. 

Pater, Walter. Greek Studies. N. Y., Macmillan, 1903. 


A new edition of this favorite book. 

Ruskin.JoHN. The Relation between M. Angelo and Tin- 
toret. N. Y., Merrill, 1897. 

Springer, A. Michelangelo in Rome. Leipsic, 1875. 

Symonds, J. A. Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti. 2 v. 

111. N. Y., Scribner, 1893. $4.00. 

See Introductory Notice. 

Synionds, J. A. Sonnets of Michelangelo. N. Y., Mosher. 

Felicitous translations. 

Trollope, T. A. Lif e of Vittoria Colonna. London, 1859. 

Twombly, Alexander S. The Masterpieces of Michel- 
angelo and Milton. 111. N. Y., Silver, 1896. $1.50. 

■ • 

Wolfflin, Heinrich. The Art of the Italian Renaissance. 

N. Y., Putnam, 1903. $2.25. 

Treated ** from a somewhat novel point of view — that of the craftsman 
himself rather than that of the interpreter." 


Gazette des Beaux Arts. 1876. v. 13; January, 
Masters in Art. 1901. Parts 16, 17. April: May. 
McClure's Magazine. 1901. v. 18; December. 
Scribner's Magazine. 1893. v. 13; February. 

Xe00on I. 


Early Life and Worka 
Outline for Study, > 

Michelangelo's family ; his apprenticeship to 

Studies in the Medici Garden; the traditions 
handed down by his master, Bertoldo ; Lorenzo 
de' Medici's attitude toward art students. 

Early manifestations of Michelangelo's genius ; 
motifs taken from antique sculpture and carved 

His first visit to Bologna — contribution to the 
Shrine of St. Dominic. 

Works executed in Rome and Florence between 
1497 and 1505 — statues, reliefs and paintings ; 
their related style; Michelangelo's manner 
of working in marble ; his perfect craftsman- 

Cartoon of the Battle of Pisa, an object lesson to 
the artists of that day ; merit of Michelangelo's 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Art School of the Medici Gardens. 

The Laurentian Era. 

Florentine politics in the early Sixteenth Century. 

The Bacchus Myth and its interpretation. (Pater: 

Greek Studies.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 2100^1 —Mask of a Faun. (Copy.) 

Vasari relates that Michelangelo's first work on entering 


Bertoldo's school in the Medici Gardens was a Mask of a Faun 
suggested by an antique model. Lorenzo noted this with 
especial praise, adding, however, that the old seldom had so 
perfect a set of teeth. Whereupon the lad, then but fourteen, 
struck out one tooth, to the great amusement and satisfaction of 
his princely critic. This copy does not in all respects corre- 
spond to Vasari's description. It has been suggested that it was 
made by some one who had studied the Mask under the arm of 
Night, of the Tomb of Giuliano de' Medici, a comparatively 
late work by Michelangelo. On the other hand the marks of 
the drill indicate the influence of late Roman sculpture which 
inspired other youthful works by the master. 

In how far has the Greek idea of the Satyr been carried 
out ? Is its grotesqueness intelligible as symbolism ? To 
what aspect of nature does it correspond ? How is this 
consistent or inconsistent with the spirit of Greek art ? 
Is it more or less repellent? In what respects does it 
seem like a boy's copy of a classic work ? 

No. 2101^ — Combat of Centaurs with Lapitha. 

Unfinished work in high relief of 1490-92, called also " The 
Rape of Dejaneira." The subject is said to have been sug- 
gested by Poliziano, one of Michelangelo's comrades in the 
house of Lorenzo. How far it was intended as an illustration of 
the Greek myth (a favorite subject with Greek sculptors) is 
uncertain, or what part of the incident is represented. The 
reflex of Bertoldo's fondness for copying antique sarcophagi is 
perhaps to be found in this work, which the artist kept always in 
his own possession. 

Is there restraint? Is the violence of movement in 
accordance with Greek tradition? Cf. 401*. Can the 
complication of form and the unintelligibility of the 
composition be justified on artistic principles ? Are there 
similar effects in early Tuscan sculpture ? Or Gothic ? 
Cf. 1002*, 1008*, 1023*. Is the same tendency observ- 
able in other works by Michelangelo ? 

Compare the battle scene by Bertoldo, 1286*. Note 
the arrangement of heads, the different planes of relief, 
the grouping. Is his influence discernible in Michel- 


angelo's relief ? What new principle is introduced ? 
How is attention drawn to the center of the scene ? Is 
the character of these heads apparent in his later work ? 

No. 2102ii —Madonna. 

(** Madonna of the Stairs.*') 

Very low relief, delicately finished. Its authenticity has been 
disputed but its history entitles it to serious consideration. Pre- 
sented to Cosimo I., Duke of Tuscany, by Michelangelo's 
nephew, it was later returned to the Buonarroti family ; it is 
preserved in the house once belonging to Michelangelo, which 
was bequeathed, with its contents, to the city in 1858. 

What is distinctive in the proportions of the Child, of 
hands and feet, in texture of flesh ? Is the position of 
the Child unnatural, unusual ? Is drapery broad, 
studied from nature ? 

What resemblance to Donatello's work ? 

Cf. 2108*, 2 1 12*, 2143*. Analyze Michelangelo's 
conception of Madonna's character. How far individual 
to himself ? Is it spiritual ? 

Why are the stairs and background figures introduced? 
Cf. 3800**, 3801**, 1863**. Are they a fortunate addi- 
tion ? In what does the beauty of the work consist ? 

No. 2103a — Angel with Candlestick. 

Statuette about 2 feet in height : for its position at the base of 
the sarcophagus, see reproduction of the Shrine of St. Dominic, 
1017a . The figure of St. Petronius, standing with the model 
of a church in his hands, above the broad sculptured band, was 
probably also designed by Michelangelo if not executed by him. 
The work was done in 1494 during the artist's first visit to 

The extremities are beautiful and true to nature. In this 
connection it may be noted that where the hands and feet of 
Michelangelo's works are finished they are truthful transcripts 
of very beautiful models both in form and texture. Also, that 
his early art is naturalistic and, while strong, is distinguished 
by the presence of gentle emotions, unlike the terribilitd. of his 
later work. 


Is this work more virile than the corresponding angel, 
1585* ? Does it show greater artistic resource ? Is ' 
antique influence, or study of contemporary types sug- 
gested by shape of head, style of hair, facial proportions, 
strenuous attitude and expression? Cf. 2101*, 401*. 
Are the wings of both of these figures studied from 
natural models ? Would they bear the bodies in flight ? 
What considerations reconcile us to artistic license ? 

How has Michelangelo endeavored to bring his work 
into conformity with that previously done on the Shrine ? 
What resemblance between this angel and St. Petronius ? 
How do they compare in ecclesiastical and in decorative 
character with 1585* and other figures on this monument ? 

1585* has been attributed to Michelangelo by early 
critics — what reasons for or against such ascription ? 

No. 2105 a —Drunken Bacchus. 

No. 2106a — Kneeling Cupid. 

Life-size statues, belonging probably to the period of Mich- 
elangelo's first visit to Rome, 1496-1501. The Bacchus, an 
exquisitely finished figure, was purchased by Jacopo San Gallo. 
The same friend and patron also purchased a Cupid which is 
supposed to be the kneeling figure discovered, about 1850, in 
the cellars of the Rucellai Gardens in Florence. This was 
apparently an open air statue ; it is believed to have been 
exposed to the weather for two centuries, and shows signs of 
pistol practise. It is shown in the act of picking an arrow 
from the ground and about to fit it to the bow which is 
grasped in the other hand. While some critics accept this 
without question as an early work of Michelajigelo, others are 
very doubtful of its authenticity. 

Are these two statues sympathetic interpretations of 
classic myth } 

How does Michelangelo compare with Jacopo San- 
sovino in that respect.? Cf. 2082*. Is there anything 
to forbid this conception of Bacchus in Greek art ? 

What details express drunkenness ? What technical 
differences between 2105* and 2082*? Of what are you 


most conscious — the copying of the model or an appeal 
to the imagination ? Does Michelangelo's other work 
lead us to believe that he ever executed a figure for the 
purpose of mere realistic representation ? Would these 
figures stand securely without support ? Were these 
sculptors the first to turn such supports to artistic 
account ? 

In 2106* is the feeling of movement vivid? How is 
this an original treatment of the motif of Eros ? Is an 
impression of grace usual in Michelangelo's work ? 
Does this alertness of body occur elsewhere? Does 
the facial type group this with other early works by him ? 

What have these two statues in common ? How do 
they differ from and how resemble this artist's other 
work ? (Return later and study them in this respect.) 

No. 2108a — Pieta. 

Called also Madonna della Febbre. (Our Lady of the Fever.) 
Executed in Rome, 1499-1500, for the Cardinal di San 
Dionigi, Abbot of St. Denis and French Ambassador to the 
Papal Court. It was placed in the old basilica of St. Peter in 
the Chapel dedicated to Our Lady of the Fever. It is the only 
work signed by the artist. His friend, Jacopo San Gallo, pledged 
his word that it should be the ** finest work in marble that 
Rome can show." The surface is finished with extreme deli- 

Compare with other treatments of this subject. What 
ordinary signs of emotion are wanting here ? Is this 
reticence characteristic of Michelangelo ? How effective 
is the appeal to our sympathy? 

What reason for emphasizing the matronly proportions 
of Madonna ? Is there any discrepancy in the relative 
size of Mother and Son ? In their ages ? Is there any 
justification of such an appearance? What difficulties 
in presenting such a group ? How has Michelangelo 
overcome them ? 

Is there any artistic reason for the many folds in the 
drapery? Is Jacopo della Quercia's influence discerni- 

ble ? Cf. 1548* (new number 1128*). Donatello^s ? 
Cf. 1230*. Is the beauty of form and of finish the 
chief excellence ? A sufficient excellence ? 

No. 2114a— David. 

Height, 13^ feet. Sculptured from a long block of statuary 
marble that, on account of its shape, out of which no other 
sculptor believed he could carve a statue, had lain unused for a 
century. Michelangelo's computations were so exact and his 
David filled the block so completely that vestiges of the rough- 
ness of the original marble remained on the top of the head and 
at the base. 

In this statue the sculptor was possibly hampered by the 
limitations of the block. Another David designed at this time 
and cast in bronze (now lost) was more free in movement and per- 
haps represented more truly the master's idea of " David the 
Deliverer." The marble statue, known by the Florentines as 
'• II Giganti," stood until 1873 i" its original position near the 
door of the Palazzo Vecchio, exposed to the weather, but its 
surface still retains the wonderful finish given by the master. 
Some portions, as the muscles, cords and veins of the right 
fore arm and hand are wrought out in remarkable detail, by 
comparison with which most of the body is simply treated. 

Has Michelangelo adhered to the Biblical description 
of David ? Is he represented before or after the con- 
flict with Goliath? What is the explanation of his 
movement ? What is held in either hand ? Upon what 
is his attention riveted ? Is he uncertain, fearful ? 

How complete is Michelangelo's anatomical knowl- 
edge ? Is it obtrusive ? Is youth indicated in the form, 
the face, the attitude ? 

(Notice the unusual, but natural, attitude of the left leg upon 
which the force of the spring will presently come and the ease 
of the position with the promise of immediate action.) 

Is there any reason why he should not be graceful ? 
Cf. Verocchio's David, 15 41*. What sacrifice has been 
made to realism ? 

Cf. Donatello's St. George, 123 1*. What resemblance 
in character suggestion, in facial type and expression ? 


Cf. Bernini's David, 2265*. Has the later sculptor 
gained in force, in skill, in poetry? 

No. 2111a — Madonna. 

(Madonna of Bruges. ) 

Life-size. Executed for the Flemish Moscron family and 
placed in the chapel ornamented by them in Notre Dame. 
The group is relieved against a black marble niche. It was 
sculptured soon after the Pietk ; Michelangelo, always serious 
and religious, was profoundly moved at that time by the de- 
plorable conditions in his beloved Florence attending Savon- 
arola's last days, and it is thought that these two groups reflect 
his mood. 

Is this a work of unusual religious suggest iven ess ? 
Is Madonna a girlish type ? Is there any lack of mater- 
nal tenderness ? 

Is the group conceived in a grand manner ? Is there 
any exaggeration in manner or feeling ? Is the move- 
ment of figures and draperies abrupt or flowing ? To 
what artistic uses is the costume turned ? To what 
other works, by Michelangelo, is this allied by Madonna's 
peculiar beauty and dignity .'* Does it possess the 
qualities of noble composition ? 

No. 2112» — Madonna. 

Circular relief, made for Bartolommeo Pitti. 

No. 2113^ — Madonna. 

Circular relief, made for Taddeo Taddei. Our reproduction 

is from a plaster cast, a photograph from the marble not being 

obtainable. These two medallions were executed at nearlv the 

same time ; both are unfinished ; in both the figures are life-size. 

'* A pair of uncut gems." — Symonds. 

What indicates that these reliefs were executed in a 
less strenuous mood than most of Michelangelo's work ? 
What are the emotions of the Christ-child in 2113*? 
Does this resemble any picture by Raphael ? What does 
the little Baptist carry on his back and what does he 
offer to Jesus ? What is suggested by St. John in 21 12^ ? 


Do these works gain or lose in any way by their 
unfinished condition ? Is the grouping adapted to the 
circular form ? Are the attitudes constrained or con- 
ventional ? Is the spirit of the two the same ? 

No. 3801^ — The Doni Madonna. 

Circular panel, diameter ^6}^ inches. Executed about 1503, 
in the same period with the two circular bas-reliefs, for Angelo 
Doni, the patron and friend of Raphael. This, and the two 
easel pictures, 3800b and 3802^ , which are similar in technique, 
were long considered tempera paintings ; but Heath Wilson, one 
of Michelangelo's most careful biographers, with exceptional 
opport^mities for examining the Doni picture, states that they 
are painted in oil. The coloring is cold, hard and conventional. 

Do Michelangelo's distant figures fulfil the functions of 
a background as well as other artists' landscapes ? Are 
they as interesting ? Do they relieve the principal figures 
as satisfactorily ? Do they draw attention away from the 
main personages ? Can you recall a landscape by 
Michelangelo? Does his art seem incomplete because 
of his indifference to that element ? Is this picture rem- 
iniscent of another artist in its treatment of the back- 
ground ? 

Are the postures of the foreground figures natural, 
graceful, comfortable? Compare Madonna with the 
seated figure in Raphael's Entombment, 3426^. In 
which is the attitude more easily explained? Which 
seems like the original idea ? 

What technical charm does this painting lack ? Cf. 
Leonardo da Vinci's paintings. In which is Michel- 
angelo more the master of his material — this or the 
marble tondil 

No. 3800i> — Madonna, Child, St. John and Angels. 

No. 3802b — The Entombment 

The authenticity of these unfinished paintings has given rise 
to much discussion. The Madonna group was at one time 
believed to be by Ghirlandajo ; later, to be an early work of 


Michelangelo while still in Ghirlandajo's bottega ; more recent 
critics consider it a painting bj Bugiardini after a design hy 
Michelangelo; one calls attention to the resemblance of its 
composition to earlj Tuscan sculpture although not to Tuscan 
painting. 3802^ was discovered in a Roman picture store in 
1846 completely painted over. It was cleaned and the under- 
painting thus revealed was attributed to Michelangelo bj the 
learned German artist Cornelius. Some, unwilling to accept 
his opinion, have suggested that it may be the work of Pontormo 
who frequently painted after Michelangelo's designs. 

Is 3800^ characterized by originality of design, by 
force in drawing, alertness of movement, grace of action 
corresponding to known works of Michelangelo ? Have 
the angels and shepherds the same proportions, bulk, 
muscularity as Michelangelo's youths ? Do the faces 
reflect his individuality of t3rpe? Does he repeat the 
almost playful character of this motif? 

(Make these comparisons carefully and arrive at an 
independent and well-founded conclusion.) 

Is 3802^ unconventional in its attitudes? Is the 
action of each figure purposeful, attention concentrated ? 
Is it marked by knowledge of anatomy and foreshorten- 
ing ? Is there promise of impressiveness, of powerful 
appeal to sympathy ? 

No. 3803b _ The Battle of Pisa : detail of Cartoon. 

(From an Engraving.) 

The Cartoon was designed for a fresco on one of the long 
walls of the Great Council Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio, and was 
executed 1504-6, at the same time that Leonardo da Vinci was 
working on the Battle of Anghiari, (see 3042b ) destined for 
the opposite wall. Michelangelo's Cartoon depicts an episode 
in the war with Pisa — four hundred Florentine soldiers sur- 
prised, while bathing, by Sir John Hawkwood and his British 
legion. It aroused the greatest enthusiasm when it was ex- 
hibited and was studied and copied by artists young and old. 
Cellini claims that Michelangelo never afterward rose to the 
same pitch of power. 

The disappearance or destruction of the Cartoon a few years 
later has never been satisfactorily explained. There now exist a 


monochrome copy of a portion of it by Aristotele San Gallo at 
Holkham Hall, England (the original from which our repro- 
duction is derived); a sketch of the whole in Vienna; and 
Marc Antonio Raimondi's engraving of a small group called 
'* The Climbers." 

Would landscape naturally be prominent in such a 
motif 1 Is the background satisfactorily filled here ? Do 
the haste and surprise so evident give a sense of confu- 
sion to the picture ? Do the undignified details mar the 
effect of seriousness ? Do the bodies seem to have been 
drawn for the sake of study of the nude ? Or as clever 
exercises in anatomy? Cf. 1873**, 1876^, 1879^. ^^ 
this the power and nobility of the Greek frieze, 401*? 

In his art thus far reviewed is Michelangelo revealed 
as a versatile artist ? Were his interests and sympathies 
broad ? Was he more serious, more learned than artists 
in general at that time ? 


2100* . . . Florence — Bargello. Mask of a Faun. 

2ioia - . . Florence — Casa Buonarroti. Combat of Centaurs 

and Lapiths. 
2102a. . . Florence — Casa Buonarroti. Madonna of the Stairs. 
2103*. . . Bologna — S. Domenico, Shrine of St. Dominic. 

Angel bearing Candlestick. 
2105a. . . Florence — Bargello. Drunken Bacchus'. 
2io6a . . . London — S. Kensington Museum. Kneeling Cupici. 
2108a. , . Rome — St. Peter's. Pietk. 
2iiia . . . Bruges — Notre Dame. Madonna. 
2112* . . . Florence — Bargello. * Madonna: Medallion. 
2113a. . . London — Royal Academy. Madonna: Medallion. 
2114a . . . Florence — Academy. David. 


3800b . . . London — National Gallery. Madonna, Child, St. 

John and Angels. 
3801b. . . Florence — Uffizi. The Doni Madonna. 
3802b . . . London' — National Gallery. The Entombment. 



Xe00on 2. 


Outline for Study, 


Michelangelo's characteristics as a sculptor; 
' powerful physique ; * unconventional atti- 
tudes ; 3 the comparatively small head ; + beauty 
of profile. 

The spiritual intensity and melancholy grandeur 
of his work. 

His tendency to leave work unfinished — its 

a — " The Tragedy of the Tomb." 1505-1545. 

Magnificence of the original scheme for the mau- 
soleum of Pope Julius II. ; temperamental 
sympathy between the Pope and Michelangelo. 

Responsibilities devolving upon a tomb-builder. 

Financial complications ; Michelangelo's difficult 
disposition — flight from Rome ; subsequent 
reconciliation with the Pope ; statue of Julius 
at Bologna. 

Julius' vacillation in regard to his tomb ; other 
tasks assigned to the sculptor. 

Death of Julius ; claims made upon Michelangelo 
by succeeding popes. 

Negotiations with the family of Julius ; repeated 
modifications of plans. 

The inglorious outcome ; final location of the 
Tomb in San Pietro in Vincoli ; work actually 
accomplished by Michelangelo. 

Importance of the statue of Moses in the world 
of sculpture. 


i> — San Lorenzo and the Tombs of the Medici. 


Projected improvements on the church of San 

Lorenzo. (1517.) Architectural setting of the 

Allegorical significance, of the figures ; absence of 

Studies in anatomy. Medici tombs compared 

with Greek sculpture. 
Influence of Jacopo della Querela. 
Michelangelo's sense of obligation to the house 

of Medici. 
Other sculptures in the Sacristy ; his assistants. 
Michelangelo's ideal of womanhood. 

Topics for Further Research. 

Pope Julius II. (Klaczky : Rome and the Renais- 

The Medici Dukes of Urbino and of Nemours. 
(Grimm, v. i., 506-511.) 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 2119a — Tomb of Pope Julius 11. 

The original plan of the Tomb was a fitting memorial to the 
greatness of both Pope and Sculptor. It was to be a quadrangu- 
lar structure, visible from all sides, 36x22 feet at the base, and 
about 36 feet in height. Niches in the lower course were to be 
occupied bj Moses, Paul, Active and Contemplative Life, and 
conquered Provinces triumphed over by Victories ; figures of 
Captive Arts dj'ing at the death of their patron were designed 
to stand against pilasters, examples of which are the two 
** Slaves " in the Louvre. Colossal figures were also to be 
ranged on the second course. The design for the entire tomb 
included fifty or more statues. To accommodate this immense 
mausoleum the reconstruction of the basilica of St. Peter was 
determined upon, involving the destruction of eighty-seven 
tombs of distinguished prelates. The change of the plan to a 
mural monument, and, later, repeated reductions in scale, re- 
sulted finally in the tomb that now stands against the wall at the 


end of a side aisle in St. Pietro in Vincoli (St. Peter in Chains) 
— the church whose title Julius bore as Cardina,!. The lower 
course, designed in the spirit of the fifteenth century, is en- 
riched with a profusion of ornament in low relief ; the second 
course of a simple order of pilasters of heavy proportions and 
niches bare of decoration presents the appearance of a mere 
architectural sketch, the details of which have not been thought 
out. This was probably done without the master's supervision, 
as was the case with the Sacristy of San Lorenzo. The statue 
of Moses was touched by no hand but Michelangelo's. The 
statues on either side, Leah and Rachel or Active and Contem- 
plative Life and Madonna and the Child in the central niche 
above were blocked out and nearly finished by him, but com- 
pleted by Raffaello da Montelupo, who also finished the Sibyl 
and Prophet on the upper course, believed to have been com- 
menced by Michelangelo. The figure of the Pope is by Maso 
del Bosco. The terminal busts in the lower course by Jacomo 
del Duca, an assistant of Montelupo. 

This melancholy outcome of magnificent plans offers one of 
the most telling paradoxes of Papal greatness. And the 
** terrible " Pope lies buried, not here but in St. Peter's, at the 
feet of the earlier representative of his family, Sixtus IV. 

Is the general design of the lower course marked by 
life and force ? Is it unquiet? Cf. 2005*. If the plain 
spaces of the second course were covered with a similar 
decoration would it be brought into harmony with the 
lower ? Would the proportions of the monument then 
seem satisfactory ? How well do the terminal objects on 
the upper course serve a decorative purpose ? What 
effect on the design has the variation in size of the 
statues? Is the sarcophagus a suflSciently important 
feature ? Is the effigy a dignified or appropriate concep- 
tion ? 

No. 2120^ — Moses. 

Michelangelo worked on this statue for forty years. It is the 
only one for the Tomb that he completely finished. In its 
present position it is too low for the commanding impression 
originally planned. 

How is the statue of Moses made prominent ? (Refer 


to 2 1 19*.) What impression is produced by the phy- 
sique ? In what respect are its proportions out of the 
normal ? Is its significance enhanced thereby ? What 
is the meaning of the horns ? Of the luxuriant beard ? 
Does the latter convey a subtle allusion to Julius ? What 
is indicated by the alertness of the figure, the position of 
the left foot? What historicarmoment does it depict ? Is 
the character of law-giver — of leader — emphasized? 
What constitutes the grandeur of the work ? 

No. 2124 a — The Bound Slave. 

This colossal figure is interpreted as one of »the Liberal Arts 
fettered by the death of the Pope. The profile, as in many of 
Michelangelo's works, is of surpassing beauty. This is the 
most nearly completed of the two in the Louvre. Too large 
for the altered design of the tomb, they were presented by Mich- 
elangelo to Roberto degli Strozzi because of friendly favors. 
By him they were given to the king of France who, in turn, 
presented them to Constable de Montmorenci, from whom they 
were bought by the French government. Four similar figures, 
merely blocked out, are built into a grotto in the Boboli 
Gardens, Florence. 

Is this a face of peace or of anguish ? Gladness or 
sorrow ? Is sleep or death represented ? Are the massive 
shoulders and chest characteristic of Michelangelo ? 
Suggest an interpretation or explanation. Is the grace 
of this figure marred thereby? Does the muscu- 
lar development suggest coarseness? Cf. 2260% 2 114*. 
Is the beauty preeminently physical or spiritual ? 

What suggestions of declining vitality ? Has the atti- 
tude offered any difficulties to the sculptor ? Does it 
look like living flesh and muscle ? What difference be- 
tween the mental attitude of this sculptor and of a Greek 


No. 2129a — Victory. 

No. 2149a — The 'Wounded Adonis. 

The anthenticity of these marbles is questioned ; but the 
balance of trustworthy opinion seems to incline toward their 
having been commenced by Michelangelo, and subsequently 


worked on by other sculptors. The exquisite finish of the torso 
of Victory is ascribed to him, but not the face, which is less 
suggestive of character than his faces usually are. It is sur- 
mised that this is one of the figures symbolizing the victory 
over a province, designed for the Tomb of Julius, and the sug- 
gestion is made that bronze wings were to be attached to the 
figure. In Adonis, the block left by Michelangelo under the 
knee was transformed by a later workman into a boar. (Adonis 
was a beautiful youth killed by a boar while hunting.) A com- 
parison of this with a sketch for the Tomb of Julius irresistibly 
suggests that this was a conquered province lying at the feet of 
a Victory. These differ in scale from the figures now on the 
monument, leading some to think that they were intended for 
the Fa9ade of San Lorenzo, and Adonis has been referred to as 
early a period as David. 

Is there a resemblance between the heads of Adonis, 
Giuliano de' Medici and David .^ Do these suggest 
antique types or contemporary ? Cf. 2101*, 2106*. In 
2129* does the youth exert all of his force toward hold- 
ing the older man ? Does the weight seem sufficient or 
is the old man kept down by the moral force of defeat ? 
Is this a swift transition movement or a position of tem- 
porary rest? Why is not the attention of the victor 
directed toward his captive ? Does the turning of the 
body upon the hip occur in other works ? Is the 
movement well managed ? 

In 2149* has the youth fallen suddenly and heavily or 
slowly ? Are the suffering and exhaustion of death 
shown ? Cf. 2124*. Is there the same degree of relaxa- 
tion in all parts of the figure ? Is this in accordance 
with actual conditions ? Is this equal in beauty, in 
strength of conception, in delicacy of work to Michel- 
angelo's well-known works ? 

Nob. 2130^ - 2139^^ —Tombs of the Medici 

The commission for the New Sacristy of San Lorenzo and its 
monuments was given by Leo X., and ratified by Clement. VII., 
two popes from the Medici family. The work begun in 1520 
continued, with interruptions, until the death of Clement, 1534, 


when it was still unfinished. Michelangelo's original plan in- 
cluded statues in the niches on either side of the main figures, 
also in niches above the doors ; large use was to be made of 
stucco and bronze ornamentation; plane surfaces of the wall and 
the domed ceiling were to be frescoed. The sarcophagi are of 
grayer marble than the paneled screens and the projecting 
figures suggest a doubt if they were designed by the master. 
He left no designs. and the work was completed"without his su- 
pervision by the Florentine Academy under Cosimo I. 

The Tombs are on opposite sides of the Sacristy. On another 
side the group of Madonna and Child, 2143^ , is placed between 
two patron saints of the house of Medici — the latter attributed 
to Montorsoli and Raffaello da Montelupo. 

The statues were sculptured in a time of peculiar stress and 
political disturbance and are believed to allude to the conditions 
that oppressed Michelangelo's soul. There is no attempt at 
portraiture in the figures named Giuliano and Lorenzo. 

No. 2130a —No. 2136^ . 

What resemblance to the Tomb of Julius II. in the 
important elements of the design ? In relative propor- 
tions ? In ornaments of the pilasters ? In the sarcoph- 
agus ? Which is best considered ? 

No. 2131a — Giuliano de' Medici 

Duke of Nemours. 

No. 2137a — Lorenzo de' Medici. 

Duke of Urbino. 

These are not to be considered as portraits ; even as idealiza- 
tions or abstractions they do not conspicuously suggest the men 
whose names they bear. Giuliano, son of Lorenzo the Magnifi- 
cent, was a man of scholarly disposition and retiring habits, 
historically unimportant. Lorenzo, son of Giuliano's brother 
Piero, was a spirited and ambitious youth who achieved distinc- 
tion in war but died early ; with him ended the legitimate line of 
male succession from Cosimo, Pater Patrice, 

Are these figures easy in attitude ? Is there a suf- 
ficient 'consciousness of the bony framework? What 
traits and accessories suggest the warrior ? What mood 
is denoted by the attitude of each ? Are the differences 
between them vital and character differences or superfi- 


cial ? What has Giuliano in his hands ? Has the right a 
firm grasp ? What significance in these things ? 

How do the costumes add to the picturesqueness ? 
Why is the human mask used ? Refer to the pictures of 
the tombs : Is there any difference in the effectiveness, 
the impressiveness of the figures ? Any angularity or 
awkwardness?' Is the impression entirely of grandeur? 

No. 2134a - Night. 

No. 2135a — Head of Night. 

No. 2139a — TwiUght. 

Details of Tombs of the Medici. 

Do these figures seem secure in their position ? Are 
they too bulky for the sarcophagus ? Is this part of the 
plan carefully conceived ? Are they in harmony with 
the seated figures above ? Are the attitudes unusual, 
unnatural ? Are they suave and easy ? Is there inten- 
tion in this ? How large a use of symbols has been 
made to identify the figures ? Is this consistent with 
Michelangelo's character ? 

How is relaxation expressed ? Could the artist have 
expressed the profundity of his thought with youthful 
figures ? Why ? Are these faces and forms agreeable 
at first sight ? Study the faces of Lorenzo and of Night. 
Have they physical beauty ? Have they what is better ? 
Why is this considered great art ? Can you justify this 
verdict ? Is it a passing fancy ? 

No. 2143a — Madonna and Child. 

This unfinished group stands on a ledge opposite the altar of 
the chapel between St. Cosimo and St. Damian, 2184a and 2185a . 
Symonds thinks that the original plan included a fresco of the 
Crucifixion on the wall behind the group, for which sketches 
were found among Michelangelo's papers. 

Why is this an appropriate companion to the tomb 
sculptures ? Is our interest enhanced by the unconven- 


tional pose ? Has the sculptor been completely success- 
ful in the management of this motif 1 Is the sentiment 
of maternity well expressed ? Does the mother^s abstrac- 
tion render her cold ? Is Michelangelo's treatment of 
children sympathetic? Should this be expected? 

Compare with Raphael's Madonnas, especially 3414^, 
3462^, 3530^. In which is physical beauty paramount? 
Which best suggests mother-love ? Which comes closer 
to human experience ? Which more ennobling and satis- 
fying ? 

2119a . . . 





Rome — S. Pietro in Vincoli. Tomb of Pope Julius 

Moses : detail of 2119a . 
Paris — Louvre. Bound Slave. 
Florence — Bargello. Victory. 
Florence — Bargello. The Wounded Adonis. 
Florence — S.Lorenzo, New Sacristy. Tomb of 
Giuliano de* Medici. 

Giuliano de* Medici : detail of 2130a . 

Night : detail of 2130a . 

Head of Night : detail of 2134a . 
Florence — S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy. Tomb of 
Lorenzo de' Medici. 

Lorenzo de' Medici : detail of 2136a . 

Twilight: detail of 2136a . 
Florence — S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy. Madonna. 


Xc00on 3. 


Outline for Study, 

a — Frescoes of the Vault of the ChapeL 1508-1512. 

Early decorators of the chapel and their themes. 

Temper in which Michelangelo entered upon his 

Its difficulties; character of the surface of the 
vault ; the scaffolding ; the master's inability to 
work with assistants. 

General plan of the frescoes ; the architectural 
frame-work; balanced variety of scenes and 

Cyclical character of the design ; its relations 
to previous paintings in the chapel; its sub- 
division — central panels ; Prophets and Sibyls ; 
decorative figures ; Ancestors of Christ ; span- 
drels ; entrance wall. 

Decorative value of the human figure ; Signorelli's 
influence; Michelangelo's admiration of virile 
qualities ; his standard of beauty ; lack of essen- 
tially feminine. 

Freedom and breadth of his draughtsmanship ; its 
sculpturesque traits ; color scheme ; intellectual 
quality of his conceptions. 

Michelangelo's personality as revealed in these 
b — The Last Judgment. 1535-1541. 

Michelangelo's papal patrons and his relations to 

Influence of Savonarola upon Michelangelo's 

His original treatment of a well-worn theme. 
Popular interest in this work ; its vicissitudes. 


Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 14. Interior view of the Bistine ChapeL 

(Note : The reader is urgently recommended to study the ex- 
cellent diagrams of the Sistine Ceiling, about i6 x 7 inches, 
published in Woltmann and Woermann's History of Painting, 
vol. TI. ; Symonds' Biography of Michelangelo, vol. I. ; Potter's 
Art of the Vatican.) 

The Sistine Chapel was built about 1473 for Pope Sixtus IV. 
It is a rectangular room, 132 x 45 feet, with six windows, high on 
each side. Its height is 68 feet. The roof is a low barrel-vault, 
curving where it joins the end walls, and intersected by the 
round arches over the windows — thus producing a variety of 
forms and curved surfaces. 

Between the windows on the side walls stand the frescoed 
figures of martyred popes, twenty-eight in all, while below is 
the historic series from the Life of Moses and the Life of 
Christ, on which famous painters of the* preceding gen^ation 
had been employed. Below these, again, hung Raphael's 
Tapestries. Michelangelo's work covered the ceiling above the 
spring of the window arches ; also the altar-wall. 

The nearh' flat surface along the center of the vault is divided 
into nine panels, four large and five small, containing scenes 
from Scripture history — the Creation, the Fall, and the life of 
Noah. The small panels are framed with an architectural 
design, on the pedestals of which are seated nude youths, and 
which, extended down into the pendentives between the win- 
dows, encloses single figures of Prophets and Sibyls arranged 
alternately. Putti, sturdy and usually profoundly serious, find 
place everywhere in the design as caryatids, attendants upon the 
holy men and women or as merely decorative adjuncts. On 
the corner spandrels are pictures of notable Deliverances of 
Israel. In the lunettes surrounding the windows and in the 
triangular arches above sit the forerunners of Christ in expec- 

In this stupendous work are 343 figures, most of which are 
colossal. Some in the larger panels are 12 feet in height. 
Prophets and Sibyls would be 18 feet if standing. Michel- 
angelo's indifference to consistent scale in his figures is apparent 
in the varying size of the nude youths as in the figures on the 
Tomb of Julius. It is worthy of note that not only is the 
drawing a marvel of scientific mastery but that the original 
color was of extreme delicacy and beauty. Late critics dispute 
the claim that the work was done entirely without assistants. 


The Central Panels. 

They present a series of Scriptural incidents in historical 
sequence beginning at the altar-end. They were painted, how- 
ever, in the contrary order. 

No. 3805 b — Separation oi Ught from Darkness. 
No. 3806b — Creation of the Sun and Moon. 
No. 3807i> — Creation of Land and Water. 

Is this an adequate representation of elemental force ? 
Is the coming of order out of Chaos indicated? How 
do these representations of the Almighty differ from 
previous ones? Cf. 3450^. Is there especial signifi- 
cance in Michelangelo's peculiar proportions of the 
human figure as applied to Him ? Are some vagueness 
of form, lack of solidity, fluidity of movement a ne- 
cessity of fresco practise or were they intentional? 
Cf. Correggio's dome frescoes. Would such intention be 
appropriate ? 

No. 3808^' — Creation of Adam. 

Nob. 3809b , 3810^ — Details of 3808b . 

No. 3811b — Creation of Eve 

The Creation of Eve copies a bas-relief by Jacopo della 
Quercia in Bologna. 

Is the movement of the Creator expressive of irresis- 
tible power or of violence merely ? Does the mantle re- 
strain or accelerate the movement of the group ? What 
effect have the child-angels on the dignity of the design ? 
Why the female form supporting His arm ? What is 
denoted by the expression of His face ? By His out- 
stretched hand ? 

Compare Adam with the nude youths, 3850^-3852^ . 
Does Adam express vigor, tension, spring ? Is there 
any reason why he should not ? Is his intelligence 
awakened ? Does the spiritual or the technical pre- 
dominate? Why is this one of the most remarkable 
works of art ? 


Why should the conception of the Creator be changed 
in 3811^? Is the old myth the most intelligible, the 
most artistic way of expressing the creation of Eve ? 

In the panels thus far studied is there a sense of at- 
mosphere ? Are the pictures less interesting because of 
the absence of landscape and clouds ? 

No. 3813^ — Temptation and Expulsion from Eden. 

What traditions has Michelangelo followed in narra- 
tive and composition ? Is there marked individuality of 
style? Cf. Masaccio's Expulsion, 1536^. Does the 
picture appeal to us by beauty, grace, suavity of line ? 
Are these three representations of Eve * this artist's usual 
conception of woman ? What excellences of treatment 
and arrangement ? Might there be a larger use of land- 
scape ? Is there another tree in foliage in Michel- 
angelo's works ? 

No. 3814b — The Sacrifice of Noah. 

No. 3815b — The Deluge: detail 

No. 3816b — The DnmkennesB of Noah. 

The Deluge was the first panel painted. Compare with other 
full-sized panels for relative size of figures. (The detail here 
given is slightly more than two-thirds of the length.) . The 
ceiling was exhibited to view when these three panels were 
finished. After that the composition seems to have been modi- 

Why are not these scenes chronologically arranged ? 
How are they appropriate to the general theme ? Com- 
pare their technical character with the other six panels. 

Is the Sacrifice a Jewish scene ? In the Deluge is 
pathos overdrawn } Do these people suspect the final 
destruction of all ? What are the distant group doing ? 
What opportunity has this subject afforded for the exer- 
cise of Michelangelo's peculiar talents ? Was it designed 
in a spirit of self-exploitation ? Does it help you to 
realize the actual scene ? 

In 3814^, 381 6^* is Signorelli recalled in human pro- 


portions and gestures. Cf. 1873^-1883^. Are they 
na^ve or scientific ? Is Michelangelo ever at his best in 
this kind of illustration ? Compare with the youths sur- 
rounding these panels. Is a difference of spirit observ- 
able between the historic scene and the decorative ad- 
juncts ? Are the last decorative merely ? 

Are the subjects of the medallions (the whole series) 
from Pagan or Christian legend ? What connection with 
the general scheme of the ceiling ? 

Spandrels and Pendentives. 

No. 3817i> — Judith with the head of Holofemes. 

One of the corner spandrels on which are depicted four great 
Deliverances of Israel. An antique intaglio, representing a 
vintage scene where a maiden fills the basket on her compan- 
ion's head with grapes, is said to have suggested this design. 

Is this a satisfactory adaptation of the design to the 
space ? Cf. 3515^. How is the distribution of light to 
be accounted for ? Are the action and expression of the 
women natural under the circumstances ? Where is 
Judith looking and what is suggested by this look? 
Might the scene have been made more terrible, more 
impressive ? What would be the size of Holofernes were 
he on the same plane as the women ? 

N08. 3820b -3829b —The Prophets. 

Prophets and Sibyls occur in the following order : Jonah, 
the symbol of the Resurrection, is directly over The Last 
Judgment; Libyan Sibyl, Daniel, Cumaean Sibyl, Isaiah, Del- 
phic Sibyl, Zechariah over entrance wall, Joel, Erythrean 
Sibyl, Ezekiel, Persian Sibyl, Jeremiah. 

Do the figures show the curve of the surface ? Must 
allowance be made for foreshortening ? Cf. Melozzo, 
1841^-1845^. Is there a sense of unreality in the arch- 
itecture, the seats and pedestals on which they rest ? 
How is the difference in the size of the figures to be 
explained ? 

Are these widely differentiated characters based on 


traditional types ? Does a certain type of face recur ? 
How does Michelangelo compare with Raphael in this 
respect ? What is the character of each Prophet's mes- 
sage ? Are they accompanied by symbols ? Why is 
Jonah unclad ? 

Do the children perform merely a decorative func- 
tion or are they messengers, interpreters ? Are they in 
sympathy with the mood of the prophets ? What is the 
attitude of the Prophets and Sibyls toward them ? 

No. 3830b -3838b _ The Sibyls. 

Have the Sibyls a place in Christian tradition ? Is 
there any impropiety in placing them in the same series 
with Prophets ? Is this an innovation ? In what spirit 
has Michelangelo done so ? Are they seers, bringers of 
the Divine message, interpreters of human events ? 
How do they compare with Raphael's Sibyls ? 

Is their feminine character marked by comparison 
with the Prophets — /. e ., are they as energetic, forceful ? 
Does Michelangelo, in any of his work, recognize essen- 
tially feminine traits ? Compare again with Raphael ; 
which is the more uplifting, the more enduring ? 

Why does the Delphic alone bear a scroll ? Are dif- 
ference of age and costume significant ? 

Ancestors of Christ. 
No. 3840b — Jesse. 

One of the triangular arches that project like a hood over 
each window. Under it a lunette curves around the top of the 
window, on wKich are one subordinate and two prominent 
figures. A tablet in the lunette bears the names of Jesse and two 
other Bible characters. Whether the names refer to the prin- 
cipal personages is uncertain. Close examination will reveal 
in the triangle a child as well as the woman and man — thus 
completing the family. The idea of the family group is re- 
peated in the other triangles and lunettes. 

No. 3841b — Eleazer and Mathan. 
How are these two groups occupied ? What is their 


mood ? What is hanging by the older man's side ? 
How is the young man allied to the nude decorative fig- 
ures ? Is^ there a sense of rhythm in the lines of his 
figure ? 

How does this compare with other lunette composi- 
tions in fitness to space, harmony of lines, in sugges- 
tiveness ? Cf. 3473^ » 3446** , 3439^ , 3335^ , 3062^ . 

Nos. 3850l> ~3852b — Decorative Figures. 

Of these figures 3852b was probably painted first, 3850b last. 
The acorns which occur frequently in these frescoes were a 
symbol of the family of Pope Julius II. — Rovere meaning oak. 

Refer to the smaller panels for the complete set of Athletes. 

Have these figures any connection with the subjects 
of the panels ? Are they spiritually out of harmony ? 
Do their faces indicate intellectual strength ? Are they 
human ? are they fauns ? are they abstractions ? 

Is there a prevailing type in form and feature, in char- 
acter and temperament ? 

Do they fulfil all the requirements of a consistent 
decorative scheme ? How do they rank compared with 
the rest of the work ? Do they throw new light upon 
Michelangelo's work or character ? 

How does this ceiling compare in decorative value 
with RaphaePs Camera della Segnatura? Cf. 13, 3449^, 
345o^ With the Loggia? Cf. 15. With Perugino's 
Cambio? Cf. 1895^ With Pinturicchio and Signorelli ? 
Cf. 1940^ 1865^, I863^ 

The Altar Wall. 

No. 3870l>— The Last Judgment. 
Nos. 3871b , 3872b —Details of 3870b . 

To make place for this, three frescoes by Perugino were de- 
stroyed. This painting has suffered much from the smoke of 
candles and from repainting, and its original harmonies of color 
are entirely lost. Most of the figures were nude. About this 
time the sentiment of the Christian world toward art underwent 


a change, and the tolerance of nudity that had prevailed gave 
place to an extreme sensitiveness in regard to it, especially in 
religious subjects. Nude statues were, therefore, supplied with 
metal drapery ; the most offensive figures in The Last Judgment 
were clothed by Daniele da Volterra during Michelangelo's life, 
and later that work was continued by Girolamo da Fano, under 
orders from Pius V. 

Christ and Madonna are surrounded by martyred saints in- 
vested with familiar symbols, Below, in the center, angels 
sound the last trump while Charon's boat bears the condemned 
to torture, and the souls of the righteous rise by the help of 
friends, by rosaries, or by their own climbing to the presence 
of Christ. 

Is the composition systematically arranged ? Is it 
built upon the pyramid plan ? Does it suggest circular 
planes, as RaphaeFs Disputa, 3435^? Why do the fig- 
ures diminish in size toward the lower part of the 
picture ? 

Which are accorded the most space in the picture — 
the blessed or the condemned ? Interpret the action and 
expression of the groups near the Judge. Which can 
you identify } Explain the attitude and gesture of Christ. 
Is he the embodiment of justice only, or is there a sug- 
gestion of mercy in his face ? Does he gain in majesty 
because of physical force ? Did St. Sebastian make the 
same kind of appeal to Michelangelo as to other artists ? 

Has this work the constructive ability of the ceiling ? 
How does it compare in spiritual grandeur ? Compare 
with the treatment of this scene by Fra Angelico and Sig- 
norelli. Has Michelangelo eliminated heavenly bliss ? 
the grotesque ? Does this work indicate a decline in the 
painter's power ? 


14 . . . Rome — Vatican, Sistine Chapel, interior. 

Frescoes of the Sistine Chapel, 

3805b . . . Separation of Light and Darkness. 

3806b. . . Creation of Sun and Moon. 


3807b. . 

Rome — Creation of Land and Water. 

3808b. . 

Creation of Man. 

3809b. . 

The Creator : detail of 3808b . 

3810b. . 

Adam : detail of 3808b . 

3811b. . 

Creation of Eve. 

3813 • . 

Temptation and Expulsion from Eden 

3814b. . 

Sacrifice of Noah. 

3815b . . 

The Deluge : detail. 

3816b. . 

Drunkenness of Noah. 

3817b. . 

Judith with the head of Holofernes. 

3820b. . 

The Prophet Jonah. 

3822b . . 

The Prophet Jeremiah. 

3824b. . 

The Prophet Ezekiel. 

3825b. . 

The Prophet Joel. 

3826b. . 

The Prophet Zechariah. 

3828b. . 

The Prophet Isaiah. 

3829b. . 

The Prophet Daniel. 

3830b. . 

Persian Sibyl. 

3832b . . 

Erythrean Sibyl. 

3834*^ . . 

Delphic Sibyl. 

3836b . . 

Cumaean Sibyl. 

3838b . . 

Libyan Sibyl. 

3840b. . 


3850b . . 

Decorative figure. 

3851b. . 

Decorative figure. 

3852b . . 

Decorative figure. 


e WalL 

3S4ib. . 

Eleazer and Mathan. 

Altar W 


3870b. . 

The Last Judgment. 

3871b. . 

Christ the Judge : detail of 3870b . 

3872b. . 

St. Sebastian: detail of 3870b . 


Xe00on 4. 


Outline for Study, 
Michelangelo as Architect: 

His limitations ; sketchiness of his designs ; tend- 
ency of his innovations. 

In Florence — works at San Lorenzo ; the Lauren- 
tian Library. (See Lesson 2.) 

In Rome — Farnese Palace; reconstruction of the 
Capitoline ; S. M. degli Angeli. Appointment as 
architect of St. Peter's; pious devotion to the 
work ; the Cupola. 
Last 'Words in Painting suid Sculpture: 

Frescoes in the Pauline Chapel, 1 542-1 549. 
Marble group in Cathedral at Florence — The Dep- 
osition ; its pathetic message. 

Michelangelo's Sonnets : 

Poems of love, of hate, of devotion ; Dante's 
influence over his literary style. 
Michelangelo's Personal Relations : 

The honored friend of popes ; his friendship with 
Vittoria Colonna ; solicitude and generosity to- 
ward his family. 

His boldness and decision as an artist contrasted 
with his peculiarities of character; his inflexible 
rectitude ; absorption in his work and indiffer- 
ence to the amenities and pleasures of life. 

Topics for Further Research. 

The Sistine Chapel ; its uses. 
Vittoria Colonna, Marchesa di Pescara. 
The Italian palace of the Renaissance. (Wilson.) 


The old basilica of St. Peter ; Bramante's plan for 
the new Church. (Symonds, Life of Michel- 
angelo, V. I. 144-15 1 ; Sjrmonds, Fine Arts.) 

Distinction between dome and cupola. 

John Addington Symonds, translator and biog- 
rapher qi Michelangelo. 

Portraits of Michelangelo. 

QuesHons an Special Pictures. 

No. 16— ESzterior of St Peter's. 

Michelangelo held the office of architect of St. Peter's the 
last seventeen years of his life. The vast building advanced 
but slowly during that time ; some of the work of his predeces- 
sors was undone, and some, owing to weak supports, was done 
over. His own important visible contribution to the building 
was the cupola, on which has been lavished unstinted praise. 
At his death it was finished only to the top of the drum, but his 
design was followed, with no alteration of essentials, to the com- 
pletion of the work. Two exterior features were omitted, how^- 
ever, which would have added greatly to its beauty and finish. 
The projecting cornice over each pair of the columns surround- 
ing the drum was intended to serve as pedestal for a statue ; and 
was to be united by a concave curving console to the base of the 
dome, thus continuing the curve of the dome gently downward 
and outward into a horizontal line. The internal diameter of 
the cupola is 140 feet ; the height from the pavement to the top 
of the lantern, 405 feet. 

2146a — Bust of Brutus. 

Begun about 1539 for Cardinal Ridolfi. The subject was prob- 
ably suggested by the bestowal of the name ** Brutus" on Lo- 
renzino de' Medici by his fellow-exiles for his murder of the 
hated Alessandro, then Duke of Florence. The head is said to 
have been modeled from a small antique carnelian intaglio. 
Note the cross-hatchings of the chisel, showing Michelangelo's 
method of work. 

Is the character fully indicated ? What would be 
gained by finish ? (Note the mouth particularly.) Was 
it Michelangelo's custom to suggest color in the eye ? 
Would that account for the dreamy, abstracted look of 


his faces ? Compare with Cellini's bust of Cosimo I., 
2 2 20*, a contemporary work. What arguments for or 
against the ideal or the actual in art ? Is this the only 
difference ? 

What is this man's disposition ? Is he of the antique 
pugilistic type? Has Michelangelo interpreted the 
historic Brutus? 

No. 2147ii — The Depoaitioii. 

This group is the only work in sculpture belonging to the 
last years of Michelangelo's life. It was intended as a memo- 
rial of himself and he often wrought upon it at night when he 
could not sleep. A flaw appearing in the marble, he ceased to 
work upon it, smd it passed into the possession of a faithful 
servant who saved it from destruction. Vasari would have 
placed it on the master's tomb, but other plans prevailed. It 
now stands back of the high altar in the Florence Cathedral 
but in a poor light. 

Is the group successfully constructed ? Is its width 
sufficient for its height? Cf. 2129* , 2108*. Is the 
difference in the relative proportions of masculine and 
feminine figures exaggerated ? Cf., again, 2108*. 

Are the main lines graceful ? Does Michelangelo 
ever arbitrarily sacrifice grace of line ? Is he especially 
strong in this or some other direction ? 

Is the sentiment of the work hidden by its unfinished 
condition ? What is expressed in the face of Joseph of 
Arimathea ? Does this face resemble portraits of Michel- 
angelo ? In what spirit does he interpret the story of 
the cross ? Has it a wider significance ? 



Outline for Study. 

The imitation by lesser men of the unessential 
in Michelangelo's work; over-wrought emo- 
tion ; colossal forms without grandeur of 
thought ; failure to study from nature. 


I. Sculptors. 


Collaborators with Michelangelo ; statues of St. 

Cosimo and St. Damian in San Lorenzo, 

Montorsoli's religious profession ; restorations of 

antique statues in Rome ; works in Genoa and 

Florence ; evidences of his master's influence. 
RaflFaello's career in Florence and Rome ; work 

on the Tomb of Pope Julius II.; on the Santa 

Casa, Loreto. 


The would-be rival of Michelangelo ; his skill in 
draughtsmanship compared with his feeling in 
sculpture ; his reputation among his contem- 

Work at Loreto ; Hercules and Cacus ; other 
sculptures at Florence. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Story of St. Cosimo and St. Damian. 
Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 2184a — St. Cosimo. 


No. 2185^ — St. Damian. 

Raffaello da Montelupo. 

These statues stand on either side of Michelangelo's Madonna 
in the New Sacristy of San Lorenzo. The master is said to 
have furnished the design for both. 

Are these statues self explanatory ? What portrait 
traits have they — /. <f., contemporary traits ? Is their 
likeness to each other more than superficial ? are like 
mental traits suggested ? What evidences that the sculp- 
tors were reared in a good school ? Is equal ability 


shown in the statues ? Are they harmonious compan- 
ion pieces to the Madonna ? 

No. 2150^ — Hercules and Cacus. 

The block of marble from which this group is made was 
given to Bandinelli by Pope Clement. During the episode of 
the Republic in Florence, 1527-30, Bandinelli having fled from 
the city, the Signory gave it to Michelangelo for a group of 
patriotic meaning, Samson slaying a Philistine. On the 
return of the Medici the marble again passed into Bandinelli's 
hands with this result. 

Are the types idealized ? Do they suggest the vio- 
lence and disorder of struggle ? The buoyancy and 
gladness of victory ? The shame and hate of the de- 
feated ? Compare with Michelangelo's David, 2114*, and 
with Giovanni da Bologna's Hercules, 2250*. Are the 
differences in treatment of the body only such as dif- 
ference in subject demands ? What removes Bandinelli's 
work from the mechanical accuracy of a photograph ? 

2. Painters directly influenced by Michelangelo. 


ciani). 1485-1547. 

Early training under Venetian masters. Later 
relations with Raphael and Michelangelo ; his- 
torical value of his correspondence with the 
latter. Artist factions. Allied qualities in the 
work of Michelangelo and the Venetians. 

Sebastiano*s wall paintings in the Farnesina and 
in Roman churches. 

Characteristics of his portraits and other easel 

Official position under Leo X. 

Attribution of his paintings to other artists. 


DANIELE DA VOLTERRA (Daniele Ricciarelli). 


His early schooling ; artistic relation to Michel- 

Important religious pictures ; his thankless task 
for The Last Judgment. 


His use of Michelangelo^s designs ; his original 

works and their character. 
Michelangelo's generosity with his sketches. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Imitation in art and its inevitable result. 

The Farnese family. 

Contrasts of Florentine and Venetian art. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 3910b — The Visitation. 

Long called Titian's first work ; now ascribed by Berenson to 
Sebastiano del Piombo. 

Is a new note struck in this picture ? Which is acces- 
sory — the group of figures or background ? Does either 
gain at the expense of the other ? Is sentiment wanting ? 
What Florentines have subordinated figures ? 

Is the background an interesting subject ? How is it 

invested with interest ? In the pictures thus far studied 

may foliage be found with such breadth and aerial 

quality ? 

No. 3911b — La Fomarina. 

The name was applied when this was believed to be a por- 
trait by Raphael of a baker's beautiful daughter to whom he 
was attached. At a still earlier date it was ascribed to Gior- 

How does this differ from Raphael's type and manner ? 
Is there anything to mark it as Venetian ? Does this 
type recur in Sebastiano's paintings ? Is the type noble, 

refined, poetic ? Has it the baffling interest of Leonardo's 


Mona Lisa, 3015^? Compare Raphael's Donna Velata, 
3526^. What sort of appeal did each make to the ar- 
tist ? Wherein is La Fornarina superior in drawing and 
completeness ? 

No. 3912b — Martyrdom of St Agatha. 

Painted for Cardinal Rangoni in 1520. A study for it exists 
in the Uffizi. 

How has the Saint been emphasized ? Is the narrow, 
upright mass of her body a diflficult form in a picture of 
these proportions ? How has the painter prevented any 
awkwardness resulting from that ? 

What resemblance to 3911^.? Does the Martyrdom 
illuminate the character of the portrait ? Is this com- 
posed with freedom, mastery, feeling ? Is . the modeling 
of the Saint coarse or unflattering.^ Is the story of 
horror fully suggested? Is it repulsive? Is sympathy 
expressed in the others ? Does this heighten the effect ? 

No. 3913^ — Raising of Lazarus. 

This picture and Raphael's Transfiguration were painted at 
the same time, 1519, for the same patron, Cardinal Giovanni 
de Medici, Bishop of Narbonne, France, later Pope Clement 
VII. One was intended for Narbonne, the other for S. Pietro 
in Montorio, Rome. Thus the work became, in one sense, a 
competition. Michelangelo assisted Sebastiano with advice 
and somewhat with the design. 

Is the landscape treated with modern feeling for com- 
position, arrangement of light, atmosphere ? How is the 
tree similar to that in 3910^ ? What successful points 
in the representation of the crowd ? Is there concentra- 
tion of interest ? Excess of emotion ? Is the impres- 
sion made by the picture strong or weak ? 

What traditions reappear in this presentation of the 
subject ? Which more graphic, more impressive, this or 
Giotto's, 1064^ ? 

Cf. 3911^, 3912^. Are there types common to all? 
Compare Raphael's Transfiguration, 3545^. Is it open 


to the same criticism? Has it unity in thought and 
arrangement ? Has it equal beauties ? 

No. 3919b — Portrait of a Man. 

Has this face delicacy both of workmanship and char- 
acter ? Has it strength ? What characteristics are em- 
phasized ? Is it a perfunctory piece of work ? Would 
the portrait element seem more in evidence if the face 
were less in shadow ? 

Are hair, beard and fur painted in a manner familiar 
to us? Compare 3911^. Also with Raphael's portraits. 

No. 3900b — Descent from the Cross. 

This fine freSco, now transferred to canvas, is in a dim little 
chapel in a nun's church where it is sadly obscured by the feeble 

What characteristics of the real scene are emphasized? 
Are other elements disregarded? Does the character of 
the sky deepen the impression of pathos ? What is the 
effect on the picture of the ladders ? Where is Michel- 
angelo's influence visible ? How is it modified ? What 
is individual to the painter? Does this represent high 
artistic achievement ? 

No. 3920^ — Christ Driving the Traders from the Temple. 


Is this a convincing presentation of Divine wjath ? 
Or of the anger of a strong man ? Does the confusion 
of the crowd indicate extreme terror ? Would Michel- 
angelo or Raphael invest the scene with more dramatic 
fervor ? 

Is there a sense of right proportions between figures 
and architecture ? Do the twisted columns conflict with 
the lines of the group ? What indications of Michel- 
angelo's influence ? 


• • • 


i6 . . . Rome — St. Peter*s, Cupola : exterior. 

2146a. . . Florence — Bargello. Bust of Brutus. 

Florence — Cathedral. The Deposition. 


Florence — Piazza della Signoria. Hercules and 


Florence — S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy. St. Cosimo. 


Florence — S. Lorenzo, New Sacristj'. St. Damian. 




2185a. . . 


39 1 3** 


3goob . . . Rome — S. Trinita del Monte. Descent from the 


. . Venice — Academy. Visitation. 

. . Florence — Uffizi. La Fornarina. 

. . Florence — Pitti. Martyrdom of St. Agatha. 

. . London — National Gallery. Raising of Lazarus. 

. . Florence — Uffizi. Portrait of a Man. 


3920b . . . London — National Gallery. Christ driving the Tra- 
ders from the Temple. 

Berenson . 

Clement . 
Dohme . . 
Freeman . 


. . Florentine Painters. 87-94. 

. . Painters of Florence. 337-364. 
. . Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael. 
. . Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 
. . Italian Sculpture of the Renaissance. 165-188. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts. Seven Essays in book form compiled 

from articles on Michelangelo in 1876. 


Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1861. v. 9. p. 65; 1876. v. 13. 


Gower Michael Angelo Buonarroti. 

Grimm Life of Michael Angelo. 

Grimm Zehn Essays: Raphael und Michelangelo. 

Harford Life of Michael Angelo. v. II. 252-325. 

Holroyd .... Michael Angelo. 

Hyett Florence, .her history and her art. 394-427; 

463-484; 489-504. 

Jarves Art Studies. 412-438. 

Klaczko .... Rome and the Renaissance. (Julius II.) 

Knackfuss . . . Michelangelo. 

Kugler . Italian Schools, v. II. 429.443. 

Les Correspondants de Michel Ange I., Seb. del Piombo. 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 370-384. 

Masters in Art — 1901. April, May. Parts 16, 17. 

McClure*s Magazine — 1901. v. 18. p. 99. 

Montaiglon . . . Les statues de la chapelle de Medicis k Teglise 

de Saint Laurent. 
Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 40-48 ; 233-237 ; 

337-341; 371-408. 

Miintz Une Rivalite d' artistes. 

Oliphant .... Makers of Florence. 

Pater Greek Studies. Chap. i. 

Pater The Renaissance. 75-100. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 251-308. 

Perkins Raphael and Michelangelo. 

Phillipps .... Frescoes of the Sixtine Chapel. 73-142. 

Potter The Art of the Vatican. 109-141. (Contains 

diagram of Sistine Ceiling.) 
Reymond .... La Sculpture Florentine, v. IV. 69-102. 
Robinson .... An account of Drawings at Oxford. 

Ruskin The relation between Michelangelo and Tin-v 

Scribner's Magazine — 1893. v. 13. February. 223-226. 
Springer .... Michelangelo in Rome. 

. Raffael und Michelangelo. 

. Midsummer of Italian Art. 61-168. 

. Old Italian Masters. 218-224. 

. Fine Arts. 86-93 ; 342-346 ; 384-436. 

. Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti. 

. Sonnets of Michelangelo. 

. Life of Vittoria Colonna. 









Twombly . . . Masterpieces of Michelangelo and Milton. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. IV. 30-254. 

Wilson Life and works of Michelangelo. 

Wolfflin .... Art of the Renaissance. 41-70; 170-186. 
Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. IL 487- 

Yriarte Florence. 74-77. (Dukes of Nemours and 



Note. — References to the master's friends and followers are 
found in all of his biographies, but usually in scattered para- 
graphs. A few are gathered together and here presented to aid 
the student whose time is limited ; but it should be borne in 
mind that these do not exhaust the accessible material. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in North Italy, v. II. 310- 

361. (S. del Piombo.) 

Blanc Les Ecoles Italiens. (D. da Volterra. ) 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. (S. del Piombo.) 

Grimm Life of Michael Angelo. v. II. 387-388. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 443-444; 558-563. 

Landon .... Vies et oeuvres des peintres les plus cel^bres. 

V. I. (Bandinelli; D. da Volterra.) 

Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 385-387. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 39-45. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 414-416; 467-494; 

551-552; 609-612. 

Perkins Italian Sculpture. 309-314; 317-324. 

Reymond . . . La Sculpture Florentine, v. IV. 1 15-136. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 316-339. (S. del Piombo.) 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 500- 

Note. — For history of Lorenzino de' Medici, mentioned 
under No. 2146a, see Symonds' Studies and Sketches, vol. i, 
" A Cinquecento Brutus." 


Publications for 1904-5 

The Outlines and Reproductions for 1904-5 will cover 
the field of 


from the seventh century, B. C, to the fifth century, A. D. 
About 450 subjects will be published, including ancient 
sculpture, painting, mosaic and various lines of decorative 


should plan to make use of this hitherto inaccessible 
material. About half these subjects will be such as have 
been hitherto unpublished. 


Number Fourteen 

Zl)c Sietine CeiltnG* 


By a happy coincidence, which is rare in the history of 
art the supreme creative spirit of Italian art came at the 
moment when art and Italy were ready for him. The 
technical training which began with Niccol6 two centu- 
ries before was now complete. The human mind, if not 
knowing its mission, was freer than at any time before 
or since in Italian history. Art, long fostered by pro- 
vincialism and local spirit, had outgrown its dependence 
on local conditions and was striving to think world- 
thoughts. The world was expectant and was waiting for 
the supreme synthesis. To appreciate this advantage we 
have but to ask what Michelangelo's art would have been 
if he had studied under Cimabue instead of Ghirlandajo, 
or had worked for the early followers of St. Francis in- 
stead of the humanist popes. 

To these general advantages was added the signal 
good fortune of a patron as unique among patrons as 
Michelangelo was unique among artists. Colossal in 
ambition and aggressive in personality, his daring 
thought, though less creative and less sustained than that 
of Michelangelo, followed his lead with the delight that 
only those can know who find in another's words the ex- 
pression of thoughts and impulses which they cannot 
utter. It was, to be sure, no unruffled sea over which 
these two titans sailed to their common goal.' Tempests 
were frequent enough and such as to terrify lesser spirits. 
The first undertaking, too, ended in shipwreck, to Mich- 
elangelo's bitter grief and our eternal loss. But if Julius 
abandoned the project of the tomb which he could not 
pay for, and with something less of candor and consid- 
erateness than we are wont to think appropriate in such 

cases, we must not forget that it was he who resisted the 
efforts of Raphael's powerful friends to secure the com- 
mission for the serene madonna painter or at least to 
divide it between the two. Imagine the result, if Julius 
had yielded. Michelangelo's work would have been a 
multilated fragment. Or suppose the work had been 
done under the voluptuous and effeminate Leo. Michel- 
angelo's work would never have been. 

But favoring conditions do not alone suffice to produce 
great art. Italy and Julius furnished the opportunity, 
furnished, if you will, the theme, but the personality of 
the artist was the important factor. Michelangelo would 
have left his mark upon Italian art in the days of Giotto 
or under the patronage of Leo. Plain as is his indebted- 
ness to the Florentines and to Ghirlandajo, nothing is so 
striking as the way in which he transcends them, convert- 
ing their skill to nobler uses, vitalizing their thought with 
vaster meanings, escaping from their limitations and 
transfiguring their art. Nowhere in the history of that 
eternal partnership between society and the individual 
has the individual been more emphatically the predom- 
inant partner. 

The Sistine Ceiling, the one vast project of Michel- 
angelo's life which was destined to see completion, is at 
once the ripest product of his genius and the culmina- 
tion of Italian art. Its defects, if such there be, are due 
to no imperfection of design or weakness in execution. 
It is perfectly conceived, perfectly executed. They can 
only be sought in the nature of Italian art, in the ideals 
which for centuries had vainly striven for perfect expres- 
sion. There are those to whom these ideals do not 
appeal. But even they are seldom disposed to deny their 
greatness or to question their eternal validity. The Sis- 
tine Ceiling is one of the few eternally valid things. 

On the technical side the work is but the complete 
application of the discovery of Melozzo da Forli. It will 

be remembered that he applied the principle of foreshort- 
ening to the correction. of the inclined and irregular sur- 
faces of dome and vault ceilings which the prevalent 
Italian architecture offered to the artist for decoration. 
Instead of painting figures full length on an overhang- 
ing or horizontal surface, thus destroying all naturalness 
of attitude, Melozzo foreshortened the figures so that 
however much the surface might incline, the figure would 
seem to stand up. There were serious objections to this 
whole procedure, notably the fact that the eye was com- 
pelled to ignore or forget the shape of the walls and 
thus the architecture was disparaged. But it is only just 
to recall that the painting of this period is far superior to 
its architecture, so that if the latter is sacrificed to the 
former it is not for nought. Melozzo's painting is not 
decoration, but it is art. It is sufficient to note that the 
principle was freely accepted at the time, that even archi- 
tects offered no objection to this playing fast-and-loose 
with their conceptions, and incidentally that the Sistine 
Chapel was not a supreme architectural achievement. 
Michelangelo made no pretense of subordinating his art 
to that of a commonplace architect. 

But when the figures on a dome or vault had been 
taught to stand upright the question naturally arose, on 
what should they stand ? To this there are two possible 
answers. They can stand on air, /. ^., they can be hov- 
ering or floating figures, or something can be built (/. ^., 
painted) for them to stand on. In this case the artist 
must make a still larger use of his new principle, carry- 
ing up in appearance from the side walls an architectural 
structure on which his figures are to rest or stand. When 
it is remembered that these structures, carried up from 
the sides, must, after all, meet overhead, the difficulty of 
carrying out such a scheme without striking incongruity 
will be apparent. The fragments of Melozzo's work give 
us no hint of his solution. At a later day Correggio 


adopts the former solution, filling the central space with 
dangling legs and vaporous atmosphere. Michelangelo 
adopts the second, building upon either side an imposing 
structure on which are grouped the figures which are the 
important part of his work. These structures on the 
opposite sides are united by unobtrusive architectural 
bands which serve the further purpose of dividing the 
middle zone into panels suitable for decoration. With 
all his skill, the artist has not made his architecture per- 
fectly plausible. The only wonder is that he has come 
so near it as he has. As a division of the surface it is 
perfect ; likewise as furnishing supports for his figures. 
This is, of course, its double purpose. As a study in 
architecture it has no purpose or significance and it is 
the perversity of human nature to persist in so studying 

In the central panels Michelangelo began by giving 
simple pictures such as might have been painted for a 
side wall. Such are the Flood, The Creation of 
Woman, etc., which, though logically the last in the 
series, are plainly the earlier and less adapted work. 
But the earlier events (/. e., the later paintings) in the 
Story of Creation show a better appreciation of the place. 
The figures here float as in Correggio's work. But how 
great the difference. Instead of standing upright and 
showing the spectator their legs and fluttering draperies 
as though they were standing or rising in that position, 
Michelangelo represents them as floating and therefore in 
an inclined position like that of a bird in flight. Nothing 
is more inappropriate than a pair of legs hanging straight 
down with no function to perform. All the analogies of 
motion through the air require that the figure should 
incline forward and that the useless extremities should 
be unnoticed. This Michelangelo perfectly understands. 
The figure may be quite as vigorously foreshortened as 
any of Correggio's (note the retreating figure in the 

Creation of the Sun and the Moon), but the incongruities 
so disturbing in the work of the later artist are wholly 
avpided. There is an amazing sense of buoyancy in 
these vast figures as they calmly float over land and sea. 

In the side figures — the Sibyls and Prophets — the 
artist shows himself complete master of the foreshorten- 
ing in which Correggio ran riot. Take a photograph of 
one of these figures and see if you can detect the incline 
of the wall on which it is painted. It is impossible to 
believe that the surface is not plane and upright, so per- 
fectly has the corrective been applied. The most famous 
example of this is the much lauded figure of Jonah, which, 
though painted on a surface that leans heavily forward, 
itself leans backward with a naturalness that is startling 
and irresistible. But with all this skill, Michelangelo 
never loses his head. The decorative figures that frame 
the central panels are not made to stand upright over the 
spectator's head for the simple reason that such views of 
the human figure are to the last degree inappropriate. 
They are essentially side-wall figures, the incongruity of 
their position being accepted as less objectionable than 
the incongruity of the upright figure seen from beneath. 
Correggio's ceiling is the work of a technician, but Mich- 
elangelo was an artist. 

Of the more usual problems of technique it is hardly 
necessary to speak. We are at a loss which to admire 
most — the marvellous beauty of the figures, the calm 
and majesty of their aspect or the variety of their atti- 
tudes. Out of a myriad of attitudes of which the sup- 
ple human figure is easily capable, art has chosen a 
score or two as conventional and appropriate. Not one 
of these familiar poses seems ever to appear in Michel- 
angelo's work. And yet the attitudes chosen and possi- 
ble to him alone, are every one as natural, as easy, as 
expressive, as artistic as those which art has made her 
own. The boundless versatility of the man is mani- 


fested thus in connection with a lifelong work which in 
de6niteness and singleness of aim has no equal in art. 

Again, with what singular power does he redeem the 
nude from its traditional reproach. Christianity had 
not favored, had indeed scarcely tolerated, the nude in 
art. It was not so much that the nude was impure as 
that it seemed unavailable for purposes of spiritual ex- 
pression. Its suggestion is rather of the pride of the 
flesh and the delight of the eye than of the struggle of 
the spirit. The neo-paganism of the fifteenth century 
hesitantly and half-heartedly plucks the forbidden fruit. 
Botticelli's nude is prudish and apologetic, Signorelli's 
coarse and repulsive. Michelangelo, first and last among 
artists, not only reconciles the nude with the spiritual 
purpose of Christian art, but makes it a vehicle of spir- 
itual expression. The Bound Youth not only needs no 
drapery to be spiritual and pure, but if draped would 
lose half its spiritual^ power. With what everlasting con- 
tempt must we remember the man who painted clothes 
upon the figures of the Last Judgment ? 

But none of these considerations, important as they 
are, explain the Sistine Ceiling or justify its fame. It is 
not its manner but its matter that chiefly concerns us, 
its theme and the spiritual significance of its message. 
That theme is nothing less than an interpretation of God 
as the Creator of the Universe and the ruler and judge 
of mankind. In the long series of panels that portray 
the creation the attempt is by daring suggestion to ex- 
press the spirit of the great transaction and to reveal 
God in his manifold character. First comes the crea- 
tion of the inanimate Universe, the elements, as the 
ancients knew them. To the thought of olden time these 
elements had each their definite character, let us say 
their spirit. Earth and water were passive elements, 
fire an active element, etc. The creation of these ele- 
ments therefore suggests as many moods or aspects of 


the Divine Character. They serve, therefore, merely 
as pretexts or opportunities for the expression of these 
aspects of the Divine. In these vast conceptions, the 
Creator is everything, the thing created nothing but a 
symbol of his mood. Notice the Separation of Light 
and Darkness, that first emergence of the creative im- 
pulse from primeval chaos, so admirably expressed by 
the dimly outlined figure of the Creator as he rolls back 
the obscuring clouds. • All is inchoate, dim and unde- 
finable, but instinct with power. Turning to the Crea- 
tion of Land and Water we see the passive elements 
suggested by a strip of placid sea over which floats the 
serene spirit of the Creator in infinite calm. His face 
is benign and peaceful, his hand outstretched in bene- 
diction rather than in creative act. The massive form 
is still the embodiment of limitless power, but it is power 
without violence, the power of inertia and repose. 

Turn now to the Creation of Sun and Moon. The 
fiery orb is but feebly suggested by anything at the dis- 
posal of the painter, but were it omitted altogether the 
terrible majesty of the Lord of Day would be fully ex- 
pressed to us in the aspect of the Creator as he sweeps 
through the Heavens, his form erect, his arm outstretched 
in fearful action, his face awful with vehement purpose 
and terrible energy, as he hurls from his open hand the 
mighty luminary on its wheeling course. The brow is 
furrowed, the eyes dart lightnings, the hair and beard 
stream back, the unused arm is tense with unconscious 
vehemence of purpose. Even the ministrant spirits, 
wrought up to excitement, turn with eyes full of terrified 
wonder at this unwonted aspect of the Almighty. The 
Greeks thought of Zeus as one who hurled the thunder- 
bolts, but how feeble are all their attempts to represent 
this terrible aspect of his majesty. It remained for a 
Christian painter to embody in the familiar form this 
awful power of nature. 


Again the scene changes. Earth is complete and 
fitted for man's abode. The supreme act is at hand in 
which to the mind of man the work of creation culmi- 
nates. Reclining in unconscious ease the image of God 
awaits the touch that shall send the life thrilling through 
his pulses. Perfect in his manly beauty, he looks out 
with sanguine, wistful gaze upon a gift whose beneficence 
he finds assured by the aspect of the Creator's face. 
For that face now reflects neither the inertia of the pon- 
derous deep nor the fiery energy of the blazing sun, 
but the quiet benignity of a sympathetic spirit. The 
figure of the Creator, though lacking the vehement self- 
assertion noted above, is not shorn of its power. The 
face is benign in its strength and his irresistible will 
loses its terribleness in the sympathy with which it is 
clothed. The figure of Adam, perhaps the most beau- 
tiful in art, is instinct with the health and power that 
was meant to be the inheritance of his race. His face 
as he gazes into the face of the Creator expresses a 
single thought, confidence. Goodness in God and hope 
in man ; thus life began, thus life was meant to be. 
Such is the artist's interpretation of this oldest story of 
our race. 

In somber contrast with this Creative mood is his in- 
terpretation of the Divine attitude toward humanity 
fallen and debased. Note among the multitude of name- 
less figures who crowd the pedestals about the panels 
we have been considering, the youth who reclines upon 
a bunch of acorns (the emblem of Julius). His atti- 
tude is easy and restful, more expressive of lassitude 
than of momentary repose. His beautiful face is quiet, 
the seat of no passing expression. But it is a face of 
inscrutable sadness. We can imagine him gay among 
the gay, can see the smile play over his face and hear 
the ripple of laughter that greets the passing jest. And 
then, when the smile has faded out and the laugh has 


died away, we see the face become itself again, quietly 
sad and, as it were reflecting, all unconscious, the gloom 
of that sorrow whose somber shadow never quite lifts 
from life as we know it. We may ignore it and, ostrich- 
like, hide our heads in the sand, but we can never escape 
it. The man who walks with open eyes sees no cloud- 
less skies in this world of ours. Through Adam we 
gaze upon life as the Creator meant it; through this 
youth we gaze upon it as it has come to be. 

This brings us by a natural transition to the supreme 
work of the ceiling, the prophets and sibyls in which the 
artist symbolizes the relation of God to his fallen crea- 
tion. The prophets have in addition to their general 
character, an individuality of their own made familiar by 
the prophecies which bear their name. This individual 
character Michelangelo has expressed with marvellous 
accuracy. Notice the startled and impulsive Ezekiel 
ready to launch into vehement utterance or action. How 
vividly this recalls the temper of the Vision of Ezekiel, 
that spiritual cyclone which sweeps through the skies. 
Compare the pent-up energy of this single figure with the 
affectation of violence in RaphaePs Vision of Ezekiel, 
where smiling cherubs play hide-and-go-seek around the 
form of Jehovah whose madonna-like placidity is thinly 
disguised under shaggy beard and flowing hair. Or, 
again, note Jeremiah, whose lamentations are so well sug- 
gested by the inert, despondent figure, his face buried 
in his hands. The youthful Daniel presents the prepos- 
sessing appearance with which the narrative makes us 
familiar. Isaiah, grandest of all the prophets, but most 
inscrutable, has at once the most impressive and the 
least definable face. Lastly, Jonah, colossal in size and 
astounding in conception, reels in amazement and dismay 
at the decision of the Almighty to discredit his message 
in the interest of humanity. These character interpreta. 
tions are given added character and piquancy by the 


varied suggestion in the attendant spirits who symbolize 
inspiration. For Ezekiel they are frenzied, for Jeremiah 
woebegone, for Joel benignant, for Isaiah earnest and for 
Jonah expostulatory and reproving. 

But the very need of thus expressing individual differ- 
ences in the case of the prophets is an obstacle to the 
representation of the great central theme, the spirit of 
prophecy. It is, therefore, in the representation of the 
Sibyls where the artist was unhampered by individual 
details that the thought of Michelangelo, ever tending 
toward the sublimest generalizations, finds its fullest 
expression. In the choice of figures, in the suggestion of 
age, character, etc., there is indeed the utmost variety. 
But the aim of the artist is rather to embody a single 
thought in widely different forms than allow each to ex- 
press a thought suited to its peculiarities. Like the mu- 
sician who combines many different instruments for the 
rendering of a single theme, Michelangelo has empha- 
sized the transforming power of the divine message by 
showing its reaction upon girlish youth and ripening 
womanhood, upon sober years and withered age. The 
Delphic Sibyl looks out with eyes dilate with wonder at 
the thought within, not lively with curiosity at the things 
without. Erythrea sits calm and sedate but all uncon- 
scious, regardful only of the book and the fateful line 
which she traces with her finger as she reads. Persica, 
old and wrinkled, turns her face almost away as with 
failing eyesight she reads in the closely held book the 
message she is to deliver. Colossal in figure and strong 
of mind and will, the Cumsean Sibyl sits all unconscious 
of her titan majesty as with knitted brow and mouth half 
opened to help the heavy breathing she seeks to read the 
lesson of human fate. Marvellous this unity in diversity, 
this singleness of spirit with which these different beings 
perform their common task. 

To the Libyan Sibyl we may perhaps turn for the full- 


est expression of Michelangelo's thought, the culmina- 
tion of his stupendous art. Young and yet no longer a 
girl, the charm of womanhood is at its zenith. A face 
of more than Grecian beauty, a frame as powerful as it 
is refined and pure, she sits easily in one of the most un- 
usual and most beautiful attitudes in art as, poising her 
weight upon her feet, she turns to lift down the heavy 
book from which she is wont to read. Her face tells us 
that she expects no message of lightness and joy. Hers 
is a solemn task and she is solemn in the doing of it. 
Her figure is fit for a goddess, her soul has room for the 
thought of a God. 

She is a woman, say you ? Nay, but what is woman, 
not in her imperfection but in her perfection and in her 
ideal ? Disentangle if you can from all the confusion of 
experience and thought the essence of the feminine, that 
goal toward which by the irresistible logic of events 
woman's character slowly, inexorably tends. What is 
that ideal, that essence ? If we can escape for a moment 
from the tyranny of passing fads and fancies our answer 
cannot be doubtful. Amid all the virtues and faculties 
which are the equipment of every rounded nature stands 
out distinctive above all the rest the feminine mission of 
charm. Most efficient when least conscious, the eter- 
nally feminine expresses itself in nothing so much as in 
the consciousness of a world to win, and power to win it 
through the inscrutable gift of feminine charm. In 
league with this are all her virtues ; tributary to it are all 
her powers. When a woman fails of this instinct which 
reaches out with subtle magnetism to win and subject all 
to her beneficent sway, she may gain all possible compen- 
sations but she ceases to be a woman. 

And of all this our Sibyl knows nothing. For her 
this woman's realm does not exist ; she craves no subtle 
conquest, exerts no magic spell. Infinitely more glorious 
than woman she does not stir our pulses, this being who 


belongs not to man but to God. Unconscious of our 
sympathy and careless of our neglect, her vast spirit 
wholly given to the mission for which it is fit, she illus- 
trates the power of this greatest of artists Xo endow with 
higher feelings and higher thoughts the forms that else- 
where in our minds are wedded to the human and the 

The thought of Michelangelo is neither intricate, con- 
fusing nor obscure. It is simplicity and candor itself. 
If we fail to grasp it, it is simply because we have no 
room for it in our slighter natures. The majesty of God, 
now calm and reposeful, now terrible in self-assertion and 
again glorious in benignity and love ; the pathos of 
man's life, buoyant and sanguine in its beginning, but 
bearing about in its inmost consciousness, as a back- 
ground upon which all other experiences are cast, the 
shadow of the great world's sorrow ; and lastly, the in- 
finite solemnity of God's message to man, these are the 
thoughts at once simple and sublime which inspire this 
greatest work of human art. 


Special 3BibUograpbi^. 

Number Fourteen. 
Boullier, Augusts. L' Art Venitien. Paris, 1870. 

Essay on the character of Venetian architecture, sculpture and painting. 

Brown, Horatio F. Venice, an Historical Sketch. N.Y., 
Putnam, 1893. 

Cook, Herbert. Qiorgione. Great Masters Series. III. 
London, Bell (N. Y., Macmillan), 1900. $1.75. 

An interesting discussion of the authenticity of the pictures to be ascribed 
to Giorgione with full descriptions. The author has, however, allowed himself 
but a single chapter in which to consider the essential elements of Giorgione's 

Crowe, J. A., and Cavalcaselle, G. B. The Life and Times 
of Titian. 2 v. London, Murray, 1881. 21s. 

The most complete account of Titian's works extant; like the other writ- 
ings of these authors, this is characterized by erudition and conscientious 

Ephrussin, Charles. Notes Biographiques sur Jacopo 
de Barbarj. Paris, 1876. 

Qilbert, JosiAH. Cadore; Titian's Country. 111. London, 
Longmans, 1869. 

The author was an enthusiastic lover of nature and student of Italian art, 
and this book is an exceedingly valuable contribution to Titian's bibliography. 

Qronau, Georg. Tizian. Berlin, Hofmann, 1900. 

Heath, R. F. Titian. Great Artists Series. 111. London, 
Low, 1879. 58» 

Knackfuss, H. Tizian. N. Y., Lemcke & Buechner, 1897. 

Not translated into English. 

Lafenestre, Georges. La vie et I'ceuvre de Titien. 111. 

Paris, 1888. 

M. Lafenestre is an authoritative historian and critic, and in this folio, 
illustrated with etchings and wood-engravings, has produced a monumental 

Logan, Mary. GKiide to Italian Pictures at Hampton 
Court. London, Kyrle Society, 1894. 

Madrazo, P. de. Catalogo de los Cuadros del Museo del 
Prado. Madrid, 1889. 

The larger edition of the Catalogue contains much valuable information, 
difficult to nnd elsewhere. 

Phillips, Claude. The Earlier Work of Titian.— The 
Later Work of Titian. 111. N. Y., Macmillan, 1897, 1898. 
2 V. $1.25 each. 


Claude Phillips is one of the most brilliant of English writers on art. 
These two volumes are practical in arrangement of material and sound in 

Simonsfeld. Der Fondaco del Tedeschi. Stuttgart, 1887. 

Steams, Frank Preston. Four Great Venetians. 111. 
N. Y. , Putnam, 1901. $2.00. 

Triarte, Charles. La vie d'un Fatricien en Venise. 

Paris, E. Plou et Cie, 1874. 

A picture of social conditions in the i6th century. 

Triarte, Charles. Venice : its history, art, industries and 
modem life. Translated by F. T. Sitwell. Plates, Maps. 
Phila., Coates & Co., 1896. 


American Architect, 1889, v. 26, 287; 1890, v. 27, 60. 

Description and critical comments on the fine altarpiece of a church in an. 
obscure Mexican village, which is believed by competent judges to be a work 
by Titian. 

Art Journal, 1884, v. 36; 1886, v. 38. 

Century Magazine, 1891, v. 21. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1873, September. 

Harper's Magazine, 1877, v. 55; 1878, v. 57, September, 

(Catarina Cornaro). 
Magazine of Art, 1893, v. 16; 1895, v. 18. 
Masters in Art, 1900, Part 2 ; 1903, Part 47. 
Nineteenth Century, 1900, v. 47. 
North American Review, 1897, v. 169. 
Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst, 1876, October. 


Xeeson U 

aiORGIONE (Giorgio BarbarelU). 1477-1511. 

Modern critics find no authority for the family name, Bar- 
barelli, save that of tradition. In the only extant document 
from his own hand, the artist signs himself Zorzon de Castel- 

Outline for Study, 

Character of early Venetian art ; its feeling for 
color, treatment of landscape, introduction of 
genre subjects. 

The influence of Giovanni Bellini upon his con- 

The scanty facts concerning Giorgio ne's life and 
work. Frescos on the facade of the Fondaco 
de' Tedeschi. Work for the Doges Palace. 

The altarpiece at Castelfranco ; an old-time 
theme treated in the modern manner. 

Changes effected in landscape painting by Gior- 
gione ; his poetic interpretation of nature ; rel- 
ative importance of landscape and figures. 

His treatment of so-called classical themes ; dis- 
regard of narrative; the aloofness of his fig- 
ures ; their freedom from self-consciousness. 

Portraits generally ascribed to Giorgione ; physi- 
cal characteristics of face and head ; introduc- 
tion of the hand ; subtle character study. 

General characteristics of Giorgione's art : deli- 
cacy of line ; warmth of color ; development 
of sensuous beauty ; the refinement of his art ; 
its power to inspire a mood. 

The high esteem enjoyed by Giorgione during his 
brief life ; the Giorgionesque element in later 
Venetian Art. 


Topics for Further Research, 

Foreign trade-guilds in Italian cities ; the Fon- 
daco de' Tedeschi. (C. & C. : Life of Titian, 
V. I. 80-84.) 

Catarina Cornaro, Queen of C)rpress. (Wiel : 
Story of Venice. Harpers, Sept., '78.) 

Cassone (chests for bridal outfits). 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 4000b — Christ besuing the CroB& 

Formerlj in the Loschi Palace in Vicenza, now in Mrs. 
Gardner's collection at Fenway Court, Boston. 

What suggestion here of Giovanni Bellini's influence ? 
Compare with the Christ by Cima, 2226**. Is this face 
more delicate, more sensitive, more divine ? Why the 
side-long glance ? Is this a new interpretation of the 
Christ character ? 

Does it claim attention because of its sentiment or 
for the character of the work? Cf. 2210^, 3217^. What 
qualities of Giorgione's art are shown in this picture ? 
Do they recur ? 

No. 4002b — Stormy Landscape ^^ith Soldier and Gipsy. 

On canvas, less than 3 feet square. An undoubted work by 
Giorgione. It has been known under this title since 1530 when 
it was described by a Venetian writer, Herr Wickhoff how- 
ever interprets it as the story of Adrastus and Hypsipyle as 
given in the Thebaid of Statins. If this be true, Giorgione has 
chosen his own interpretation of the tale. 

In what spirit has Giorgione treated the story on 
which this is thought to be based ? Is there any in- 
congruity in the scene ? What suggestion of classic 
theme or setting is there ? 

What treatment of landscape have we had before ? 
Compare with this. What new elements are introduced ? 
What part in the whole do the figures play ? How legit- 
imate is this ? 

How are the trees painted ? What decorative use is 


made of them ? Are the buildings picturesquely treated ? 
What does the sky add ? In what respect is this a mod- 
ern work? 

Na 4005l> — Portrait of a Toung Man. 

*' One of those rare portraits such as only Giorgione and 
occasionally Titian were capable of producing." — Morelli. 

What are the marked characteristics of this face? 
Has it life, strength, beauty ? Is it effeminate, sensitive, 
proud? Cf. 4000^. What points of physical reseni- 
blance ? Is the character impression similar ? 

Do the dress and the style in which the hair is worn 
make the picture less beautiful, less attractive ? Do they 
add to its interest ? 

Notice the parapet with its monogram, and the posi- 
tion of the hand. Are these found in other pictures 
ascribed to Giorgione ? Are these points of mere idle 
curiosity or may they have meaning and value ? 

No. 4006^ — Madonna Enthroned "mth SS. Francis suid 


No. 4007b — Detail. 

An unquestioned work by Giorgione painted about 1504 for 
the Costanzi family, whose coat-of-arms appears on the throne. 
Tradition has connected St. Liberale with Matteo, the son of 
the family, whose early death occurred in that year. This pic- 
ture has suffered five restorations, despite which it still retains 
an •' indescribable charm of light and color." 

In what work before this date, 1504, has the pyramidal 
form of composition been so marked ? Compare in date 
with work of Bellini, Raphael, Fra Bartolommeo. Are 
there especial advantages in this form of composition ? 
What details ally this with the work 'of early Venetian 
painters ? What phase in the development of the Ma- 
donna theme does this represent ? Is the entire picture 
conceived in this spirit ? 

Why is the banner introduced ? Does it affect the 


composition ? Is the landscape effectively arranged ? 
In what respects ? What does it add to the picture ? 

Is this work stimulating or restful ? Does it inspire to 
thought, to action, to revery ? Is it peculiar in this ? 

No. 4010b — Knight of Malta. 

Life-size portrait on canvas. The majority of critics agree 
in ascribing this work to Giorgione. 

No. 4016b — Portrait of a Man. 

Thought to be the poet, Antonio Broccardo. Morelli says, 
" We linger over this melancholy figure fascinated by the 
expression which seems so full of meaning, as though this 
young man were about to confide to us the secret of his life." 

Is the portrait character predominant in these faces, 
or has the artist introduced a personal note ? Are they 
men of action ? Is this a passing mood in which we see 
them ? Have they the same vital quality as 4005^ ? 

Note the broad, low forehead, oval face, breadth be- 
tween the eyes. Do these features recur in Giorgione' s 
unquestioned work ? 

What accessories are seen in both 4005** and 4016^, 
Have they any bearing on authorship ? Is the introduc- 
tion of the hand an innovation ? What does it add ? 

No. 4011b — Sleeping Venus. 

No. 4012b — Detail. 

In 1525 a work by Giorgione, a '* Sleeping Venus with Cupid, 
in a landscape," was described as being in the Casa Marcella, 
the Cupid being by Titian's hand ; it is known to have remained 
in Venice until 1646. When this picture came to Dresden the 
Cupid still in it was so damaged that the director had it removed 
and the picture restored ; it was then catalogued as a copy by 
Sassoferrato after Titian. To Morelli is due its recognition as 
a masterpiece of Giorgione's art. 

Are repose and relaxation well suggested ? Are the 
lines of the body modified in the interest of beauty ? 
Notice the parallel lines of the arm and body. Where is 

the right foot ? Is this natural ? In what other pictures 


is there a similar arrangement ? How has the painter 

avoided any coarse or evil suggestion ? Does the face 

reveal anything of the self-consciousness of a model? 

What is its character ? In what does its beauty consist ? 

Has Giorgione used this type of face elsewhere ? 

No. 4013b — The Concert. 

Known often as the " F6te Champ6tre," happily translated by 
Mr. Cook as a ** Pastoral Symphony."" Its color adds greatly 
to the charm of the picture. 

Are these figures arranged by chance, or are there 
main lines that lead the eye from one to the other ? Are 
the bodies modified in any way to secure such lines ? Is 
the picture closely bound together in thought ? In how 
far does it explain itself ? 

Is there any exception to be taken to the artist's 
treatment of the nude, considered by itself ? - Do the 
attendant circumstances make it unpleasing ? Is there 
any interpretation which might pardon this incongruity ? 
Is there any lack of refinement in the treatment of the 
theme? Cf. 4002^', 4011^. 

In what does the picturesqueness of the landscape 
consist ? What details give it the feeling of reality ? 

No. 4017b ~ The Three PhilosopherB. 

(-^neas, Evander and Pallas.) 

This picture was described by an anonymous writer in 1535 as 
an oil painting on canvas, begun by Zorzi da Castelfranco and 
finished by Sebastiano Veneziano (Sebastiano del Piombo), 
representing three philosophers in a landscape, contemplating 
the sun's rays. Herr Wickhoft' interprets it as the aged seer- 
king Evander, with his son Pallas, pointing out to -^neas the 
rock on which the future Capitol should stand. 

What impresses you most in this work, the persons or 
the setting ? Would the setting be interesting without 
the persons? the persons without the setting? Would 
the bearded figure produce the same impression if 
sharply outlined against a bright background and in a 
full light ? What use does the tree trunk serve ? 


Can you make out anything definite that these persons 
are doing? Is it desirable that you should be able to do 
so ? Can you form a definite idea of what kind of per- 
sons they are ? Is this desirable ? 

Does the picture give you definite topographical know- 
ledge ? Failing this, is there anything worth while for 
the picture to convey ? If so, what ? To what do you 
refer such impression if you have it ? 

No. 4020^— Shepherd Boy. 

From the collection of Charles I, where it was catalogued as 
a Giorgione. Mr. Berenson warmly advocates this ascription. 
Mr. Cook, a late biographer, suggests the name of Torbido as 
the probable artist. 

In what sense does this represent a shepherd lad ? 
What is indicated by the attitude ? Is it one of tension 
or suspense ? What gives it the poetic quality } What 
is the effect of the rather unkempt hair ? In what other 
pictures does it occur ? 

What is Giorgione's type of beauty ? Cf. Raphael, 
Michelangelo, Titian. Does this conform to any of these 
types ? Is there any suggestion of Leonardo's influence ? 

Does this suggest early or late art ? the work of a 
youthful or mature artist ? 

No. 4021b — Madonna with SS. Anthony and Roch. 
(Erroneously catalogued and printed as St. Francis. ) 

The poor quality of much of the photographic work from the 
Prado is responsible for the indistinctness of our print. The 
original is, however, too choice an example of the Giorgionesque 
in art to be omitted from our list. From the collection of 
Philip IV in the Escorial and long ascribed to Pordonone. 

In how far does this recall the Madonna of Castel- 
franco ? What is the character of the Child in each ? 
What attitude does the mother take toward the Child f 
Is one of an older type than the other ? 

Would these pictures make a stronger appeal to the 
spectator if more dramatic, if the saints were more 

actively devotional ? What feelings do they inspire ? 


Is this a work of refinement, of beauty, of power ? 
Has it the marks of youthful or of mature work ? 

No. 4023i> — Holy Family with St. £(ebaBtian. 

Morelli calls this the work of some pupil or imitator of 
Giorgione, but Cook considers it an example of Giorgione's 
own more developed style, possibly completed by a pupil. 

From which direction does the light come in this 
picture ? Is this usual ? What is the effect on the face 
of the Magdalen ? Is this merely technically correct or 
has it a serious art value ? Do yoii. notice any peculiar 
method in drawing or modeling ? Compare Botticelli, 
Leonardo. Have the shadows apparently been used for 
other purposes than showing the form of the figures or 
other objects ? If so, what ? 

Are the expressions felicitous? Does the Child re- 
semble any other in this lesson ? Is the resemblance in 
form and feature or in attitude and expression ? Is the 
Madonna strikingly spiritual ? maternal ? beautiful ? 

How does the landscape compare with those of Flor- 
entine artists ? with modern landscapes ? 

General Questions on Giorgione, 

What new elements did Giorgione introduce into art ? 
Were his innovations those of method or of spirit ? 

What is the character of his landscapes ? Does their 
excellence consist in their exact transcript of nature ? 
How freely does he use landscape ? 

Is Giorgione a narrative painter ? How does he tell 
a story ? What relation have his figures to each other } 
Are they self-conscious ? 

Are his portraits character studies ? Have they Leo- 
nardo's enigmatical quality ? 

Is Giorgione's world one of fact or fancy t Does he 
differ from other artists in this respect ? How com- 
pletely does he carry his audience with him ? 



4.000b , . . Boston — Fenway Court : Christ bearing the Cross. 

4.002b. . . Venice — Giovanelli Palace : Stormy Landscape with 
Soldier and Gipsy. 

4005 . . . Berlin — Old Museum : Portrait of a Young Man.~ 

4006b. . . Castelfranco — Cathedral: Madonna Enthroned with 
SS. Francis and Liberale. 

4007b . . . Madonna and Child : detail of 4006b . 

4010b. . . Florence — Uffizi : Knight of Malta. 

401 lb . . . Dresden — Gallery : Sleeping Venus. 

4012b , . . Head of Sleeping Venus : detail of 4011b . 

4013b. . . Paris — Louvre; The Concert. 

4016b. . . Buda-Pesth — Esterhazy Gallery: Portrait of a Man. 

4017b. . . Vienna — Imperial Gallery: The Three Philoso- 

4020b. , . Hampton Court: Shepherd Boy (attributed). 

4021b. . . Madrid — Prado : Madonna with SS. Anthony and 

4023b. . . Paris — Louvre: Holy Family with St. Sebastian 

Art Journal — 1884. v. 36. 245. 

Berenson .... Study and Criticism of Italian Art. v. I. 

70-89; 136-145. 
Berenson .... Venetian Painters of the Renaissance. 26- 

32; 151-168; 371. 

Boullier L*Art Venitien. 

Brown Venice. 322-324. 

Cook Giorgione. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in North Italy. II. 1 19-169. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 33I-337. 

Harper's Magazine — 1878, v. 57. September. 617-622. 

Heaton History of Painting. 156-159. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 550-558. 

Logan ..... Italian Pictures at Hampton Court. 
Magazine of Art — 1895. v. 18. 347. 
Masters in Art — 1903. November. Part 47. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 151- 

168; 371. 



Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. «ei6; 248-249; v. II, 

56-57; 206-225. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 598-608. 

Oliphant- .... Makers of Venice. Part III. Ch. 2. 

Pater The Renaissance : The School of Giorgione. 

Portfolio — 1889. V. 20. 194; 208. 

Stearns Four Great Venetians. 19-46. 

Stillman .... Old Italian Masters. 246-249. 
Symonds .... Fine Arts. 366-369. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 1-12. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, II. 597-608. 

JACOPO DE' BARBARI (Jacob TTSTalsch). 14507-1515? 

Outline for Study, 

A Venetian artist, self-expatriated ; residence in 

Nuremberg ; influence on Diirer. 
Later years at the Court of the Netherlands ; 

adoption of the Flemish manner. 
His fame as an engraver; subjects treated ; his 

sign manual. 
Extant paintings ; their peculiarities. "A point of 

contact between German and Italian schools." 

Questions on Special Picture. 

No. 4060b — Portrait of an Unknown Touth. 

Formerly ascribed to the early Florentine School. 

What points of interest in this face ? What is the 
character impression ? Is it unusual in any way ? What 
denotes that it is a study from a living model ? Was the 
artist a master of drawing ? Is it subtle painting ? 

Does it suggest early Florentine work ? early Venetian? 

Bryan Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Painting in North Italy. I. 229-231 
Ephrussin . . . Notes Biographiques sur Jacopo de Barbarj. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1873. September. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. II. 194-203. 

Zeitschrift fiir bildende Kunst, 1876. October. 


Xc00on 2. 

TITIAN (Tiziano VeceUi). 1477-1576. 
Titian's Early Life and Work. 

Outline for Study, 

'*Titian*s Country " ; his life-long appreciation of 
its charm. 

The artistic lif^ of Venice in the last decade of 
the 15th century; the eifects of financial pros- 
perity ; the growing demand for portable pic- 

Titian's apprenticeship and comparatively late 
development. The inspiration of Giorgione's 
genius, a permanent factor in his art ; Palma's 
influence ; his independent genius. 

Early frescos and their fate. 

Titian's Giorgionesque manner as seen in the 
Gipsy Madonna and the Concert. 

Early Madonna pictures : the perfect develop- 
ment of Bellini's favorite theme; Titian's in- 
terpretation of the Madonna character. 

The Assumption of the Virgin, the culmination of 
the series ; its consummate art and lofty 

Titian's methods of work ; the simplicity of his 
means ; thoroughness ; care in finishing ; the 
impression of easy mastery in the finished 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Dolomite Country. 

Aldus Manutius and the Aldine Press. (Oliphant : 
Makers of Venice ; Symonds : Revival of Learn- 
ing; C. & C. : Life of Titian.) 

Painted house fronts. (C. & C. : Titian.) 


Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4111b — Madonna and Child. 

Known as the Gipsy Madonna and generally accepted as 
one of Titian's earliest easel pictures. 

What type of beauty have we in the Madonna ? Is 
the Child divine ? natural ? How successfully can the 
two be combined ? Cf. other painters. 

Does the relation of the mother to the Child ally this 
to the old time pictures ? or is it modern in sentiment ? 

What new methods of work are evident ? Cf . Gio- 
vanni Bellini's Madonnas. Does it resemble Bellini's 
work in any respect ? 

What does the landscape add? Does it suggest 

Giorgione ? 

No. 4100^ — Madonna of the Cherries. 

Painted on wood, but transferred to canvas. The saints are 
Joseph and Zacharias. 

No. 4101 1> — Madonna ^th four Saints. 

Panel, figures life size. The saints are John the Baptist, 
Marj' Magdalene, Paul and Jerome. From the Grimani Palace 
in Venice. 

No. 4110l> — Madonna with St. Bridget. 

Panel, painted about 1512. Originally in the Escorial and 

attributed to Giorgione. St. Bridget is apparently from the 

same model as the so-called Violante of Palma. St. Ulfilas 
may be a donor. 

No. 4122b — Madonna with St. Anthony. 

Panel, figures just under life size. St. Anthony Abbot is 
seldom represented. 

What points of resemblance in this Madonna series ? 
Does the similarity become monotonous ? Is there any 
change or progression ? In what important respects do 
they differ from 4111^? 

Compare with Raphael's Madonna groups ; consider 
technique, grouping, types of beauty, religious character. 
How does each interpret the Madonna character ? Which 
would be the more interesting type of woman to know? 


Is the same true of the saints? Do any of them seem 
like portraits ? What previous study is recalled by St. 
Ulfilas ? How successful are the children ? Does 
4101^ differ from the others in any important respect? 

What other artists have made a similar use of light 
and shade? What effect does Titian produce by its 
means ? How does he paint the garments ? Is there a 
feeling of texture ? Are the figures sharply outlined ? 
Is the drawing incorrect or deficient? Is the modeling 
delicate ? How is the sense of roundness produced ? 

No. 4104b — The Concert (questioned). . 

No. 4105b —Head of Monk (detail). 

Long considered the .most typical work of Giorgione. Mo- 
relli was the first to attribute it to Titian. It may still well 
exemplify the Giorgionesque element in Venetian art. The 
picture, especially in the side figures, has suffered very much 
from time and retouching. 

What accessories of handsome fabrics has the artist 
used ? Are they needed ? How intimate is the connec- 
tion between the figures ? Does it resemble Giorgione's 
work in that respect? ^ 

What is the character of the three faces ? Upon 
which one is interest centered ? What compels this ? Is 
it a bafHing mysterious face ? Does it inspire a mood ? 
Does the music contribute to that end ? 

No. 4106b — Artless and Sated Love. 

No. 4107b —ArUess Love (detail). 

In this name we have followed Crowe and Cavalcaselle, 
Titian's most able biographers. The more common name is 
Sacred and Profane Love. Herr Wickhoff interprets the scene 
as Venus tempting Medea to yield to her love for Jason. Prob- 
ably painted about 1510-1512, 

Is this story treated in the same spirit as Giorgione's 
Concert and Stormy Landscape (4013^, 4002*)? Is it 
more intelligible, more pleasing ? Is there any appropri- 
ateness in the bas-relief of the fountain ? in the Cupid 


playing in the water ? In how far is the enjoyment of 
this work dependent upon its explanation ? 

What resemblance is there between the two maidens ? 
Is there an equally pleasant character impression from 
both? Which is the more unconscious? How is the 
beauty of the nude form emphasized ? 

Compare 4107^ with Giorgione's Venus (4011^). 
Which is more delicately conceived? May one have 
served as suggestion for the other ? Does this model 
appear in other works by Titian ? 

What does the landscape contribute to the scene ? 

No. 4108b —The Man with the Glove. 
From the collection of Louis XIV and signed Ticianus. 

What type of character is represented ? Is it sympa- 
thetically treated ? Has this face a marked affinity with 
any of Titian's manly types ? 

What use is made of costume to increase the eif ect ? 
Does the merging of dress and background give an im- 
pression of unsubstantiality ? Has it any advantage ? 

Is the feeling of personality strong ? or is the skill of 
the artist the main impression ? How much can we 
judge of the artist's character from such a portrait ? 

No. 4112b — The Tribute Money. 

Panel, painted about 1514, probably for Alphonso d' Este 
whose favorite legend ** Quod est Csesaris] Caesari, quod est Dei 
Deo" always appeared on the gold coins oi Ferrara. Morelli is 
inclined to date it as early as 1508. It is signed Ticianus, a form 
which Titian used until 1528. The work is distinguished by 
exquisite detail and finish. 

How are the faces of Christ and the Pharisee con- 
trasted ? Is this a usual conception of Christ ? Do the 
hands suggest character ? Are they in harmony with the 
face ? Compare with Giorgione's Christ (4000^ ). What 
more satisfactory interpretation of the Christ character 
have we studied ? In what respects ? 


No. 4113^ — ABsmnption of the Virgin 
No. 4114b ^ The Virgin (detail). 
No. 4115b — Angel (detail). 

On wood, 23i ft. X lo ft. Painted 1516-1518 for the high 
altar of the Church of the Frari. The smoke of the candles had 
so blackened it that the French in 1797 did not consider it of 
sufficient vglue to transport to Paris. It was cleaned when 
taken to the Academy in 1815 and the lower portion restored. 

What is the center of interest in the picture ? In what 
ways is this secured ? What would be the effect if the 
lower portion of the picture were not so dark ? If the 
angels were only clustered about Madonna's feet ? If 
the air behind her were filled with them ? Are they 
bearing her up or does she rise by some other power .? 

Is the picture divided in two ? Compare Raphael's 
Transfiguration (3545^). Are the lower figures equally 
excited in both pictures ? Is the effect the same ? 

Compare Correggio's Assumption (3716^). In which 
is there the greater feeling of uplift ? Are they equally 
able? equally restrained and dignified? What means 
does Correggio use to center attention? (Cf. 3728^, 
3743^0 Which artist loves and understands child-life 
and form best ? 

What is the character of Madonna ? Is she of the same 
type as those just studied ? What are her emotions ? 
Is she fitted for such an experience^?. Why is her frame 
so large and strong, and draperies so voluminous ? 
Compare the Sistine Madonna (3530^). 

Is this representation of God the Father adequate ? 
Why the angel attendants? Compare Michelangelo 


What technical excellencies in the work as a whole ? 
Is it merely a tour de force 1 What measure of spiritual 
excellence has it ? How strong is the artist's feeling for 
beauty? Has his appreciation for beauty a limited 
range ? 


No. 4125b —Three SaintB (detail). 

In the full picture, the three Saints, Stephen, Ambrose and 
Maurice are seen adoring the infant Christ as he lies in his 
mother's lap. A similar picture is in Vienna in which St. Jer- 
ome takes the place of St. Ambrose. 

What opportunity does a group of three men's heads 
offer to an artist ? How does Titian treat them ? What 
other artists have studied men's heads in this way? 
How constantly have the manly and the saintly been 
combined ? 

Compare Titian's work of this period, studying the 
men's faces. What is his interpretation of old age, of 
youth, of manhood ? Has he more sympathy with one 
period of life than another ? What qualities are em- 
phasized ? 

How does Titian represent hair and beard ? Does it 
show signs of carelessness ? What advantage has such 
treatment ? 

4100b . 

4101b . 
4104b . 
4105b . 
4106b . 
4107b . 
4111b . 
4112b . 


4121b . 


Vienna — Imperial Gallery. Madonna of the 

Cherries. » 

Dresden — Gallery. Madonna with four Saints. 
Florence — Pitti. The Concert (questioned). 

Head of Monk : detail of 4104b . 
Rome — Borghese. Artless and Sated Love. 

Artless Love : detail of 4106b . 
Paris — Louvre. The Man with the Glove. 
Madrid — Prado. Madonna with St. Bridget. 
Vienna — Imperial Gallery. Madonna and Child. 
Dresden — Gallery. The Tribute Money. 
Venice — Academy. Assumption of the Virgin. 

The Virgin : detail of 4113b . 

Angel: detail of 4113b. 
Florence — Uffizi. Madonna with St. Anthony. 
Paris — Louvre. Three Saints : detail. 


Xc0son 3* 

Outline for Study. 

a — ^Life and "Work in Venice. 

Great Altarpieces of Titian's middle period ; the 
Madonna of the Pesaro Family ; Death of St. 
Peter Martyr, its dramatic power and technical 

Titian's work for the Republic ; his worldly wis- 
dom ; controversy with Bellini over a govern- 
ment position ; portraits of the Doges ; fresco 
of St. Christopher. 

The Battle of Cadore ; delays in its completion ; 

its disingenuous appeal to civic pride ; masterly \ 

and original treatment of the subject. 

Titian's home life; his social enjoyments; life- 
long friendship with Aretino. 

b — Titian the Court Painter of the 16th Century. 

His princely patrons. 

The Bacchanal series for Alphonso d' Este, duke 
of Ferrara. 

Venetian interpretation of classic story; the 
voluptuous character of Titian's treatment ; its 
freedom from sensuality. 

Relations with Pope Paul III and the Farnese 
family; visit to Rome in 1545 and reception 
by the artist community ; portraits of the Pope 
and his sons; promised advancement for 
Titian's family. 

Favor shown by Emperor Charles V; Titian's 

patent of nobility ; his journeys to Augsburg ', 

in 1548 and 1550; numerous portraits of the \ 


imperial family. The Trinity, the Emperor's 
constant companion. 
Titian's work for Philip II ; the favorite art themes 
of his Most Catholic Majesty ; the limitations 
of a court painter. 

Topics for Further Research, 

. The independent role of Venice in imperial and 

papal politics. 
The Hall of the Great Council, Venice. (Symonds: 

Fine Arts. C. & C, Life of Titian.) 
Charles V at Yuste. 
Titian and Cranach at Augsburg. (C. & C: Life 

of Titian.) 

Questio7is on Special Pictures, 

No. 412 6i> — Madonna with St. Catherine. 

Canvas, 3^x^)4 feet, painted in 1533. Formerly in the col- 
lection of the Escorial ; since i860 in the National Gallery, 

With which of the Madonna series already studied 
has this most in common ? Is this more playful scene 
lacking in the devotional element ? Cf. Raphael's Ma- 
donna of Francis I. 

What wholesome element is found in Titian's picture ? 
How completely does it compensate for the loss of the 
earlier religious sentiment ? 

In what spirit has Titian conceived the scene ? Has 
he attempted to tell a story ? Have the accessories and 
setting an intimate connection with the main scene ? 
Has he treated other themes with similar freedom ? 

No. 4127b — Bacchus and Ariadne. 

On canvas, completed in 1523. One of a Bacchanal series 
painted for the Studio of Alphonso d' Este at Ferrara ; two 
earlier works from the series are now in Madrid, and one by 
Giovanni Bellini, which Titian completed or restored, is in 
Alnwick Castle, England. 


Does the story of Bacchus and Ariadne explain the 
license of this scene ? Is it coarsely treated or has the 
artist refined the theme ? 

Are the figures accidentally placed ? Is it a natural 
arrangement ? Has the artist an evident form of compo- 
sition ? Why the fluttering mantle of Bacchus ? What 
artistic purposes does it serve ? Do the trees iiiterfere 
with the general plan of composition ? 

Has the figure of Bacchus grace and beauty? Is the 

position an impossible one ? Why ? What resemblance 

between Ariadne and other of Titian's figures ? What 

is the character of the little Satyr in the center ? Do 

the nymphs enter into the spirit of the scene ? How 

would Botticelli have treated such a scene? Cf. 1611**, 

1612^, 1613^. How fundamental is this difference? To 

what is it due ? 

No. 4129i> — Aiphonso d' Este and Laura DiantL 

From the collection of Charles I of England. Laura Diantf, 
the daughter of a poor artisan, is believed to have been Al- 
phonso's second wife. It is known that Titian painted a por- 
trait of her which Vasari praises highly, and the name has 
been given to this work because of its excellence and the sup- 
posed resemblance of the man's face dimly seen in the back- 
ground to Aiphonso. 

No. 4130l> — Flora. 

Canvas, life size. Owned in the lyth^century by the Spanish 
embassador in Amsterdam. It has been hurt by cleaning and 

Is there here more than an accidental resemblance ? 
Is the type found elsewhere in Titian's pictures ? What 
portrait character is there in 4129^? How does it differ 
from the "Flora"? Does the introduction of the two 
mirrors offer an interesting problem to the painter? 
The man's head ? Which is the more artistic motifs 

Note the painting of the hair and the drapery. 

Does Titian emphasize the intellectual or the physical 
side of life ? Are these pictures typical or exceptional ? 


No. 4131b — The Entombment. 

Canvas. Painted about 1523 for the Gonzaga family. It 
passed in 1629 from the Mantua collection to that of Charles I, 
thence to Louis XIV. The color shows much of Giorgione's 
influence and heightens the pathos of the scene. 

Is this more or less distinct in outline than most of 
Titian's works ? Is this an advantage ? Why has he 
chosen to shade so heavily the face of the Christ ? What 
is the effect of this ? 

Do you discover any remarkable arrangement of lines 
here? Is the arrangement purely in the interest of 
narration or naturalness? Is naturalness sacrificed in 
this arrangement in the interest of anything else ? 

Do the sky and trees add anything to the spirit of the 
scene? If so, what ? 

Is there any extravagance of emotion here? Any 
lack of it ? What face best expresses the sentiment of 
the occasion ? Is that sentiment suggested by anything 
else than the faces ? 

No. 4136b — Madonna of the Pesaro Family. 
No. 4137b —Madonna and ChUd (detail). 
No. 4138b — Donor (detail). 

On canvas, figures over life size. Finished in 1526 after seven 
years* work. It still remains over the altar in the church of the 
Frari, for which it was painted at the order of Benedetto Pesaro 
(4138b ), Kneeling at the left is Jacopo Pesaro, the famous 
*' Baffo," Bishop of Paphos, whose victory over the Turks is 
here recalled. SS. Peter, Francis and Anthony surround the 

Where is this scene represented as taking place? 
What impression is produced by the columns ? Why is 
the Madonna placed at one side ? Does that destroy^the 
balance and proper arrangement of the picture ? Has 
any other artist attempted this arrangement ? Does it 
make the picture less stately and impressive ? 

What is suggested by St. Peter's action and attention ? 


by that of the standard bearer ? Why is the banner in- 
troduced ? Does it only help to tell a story? 

What is the character of the group to whom Sti^ Francis 
is pointing ? Are they subordinated to the main theme 
or are they the center of interest ? What individuality 
in the faces ? 

Do the Madonna and Child carry farther the ideal of 
earlier types ? In what ways is Titian's maturing art 
shown ? 

How does Titian handle draperies ? Is difference of 
texture evident? Compare 4138^ with 4136^ to see how 
he painted brocade. Is this the result of carelessness ? 
Cf. Bellini's Doge (2162^) and early Florentine portraits, 
I658^ I66o^ 

What is the effect of the clouds above ? Note the 
shadows they cast. Are light and shade well studied 
throughout the picture ? 

No. 4150b — St. Christopher. 

Fresco on the wall at the foot of the stairs leading from the 
private apartments of the Doge to the Senate Hall. Painted 
about 1524 while Gritti was Doge. Venice with its Campanile is 
dimly seen in the background. It has been suggested that a 
covert political allusion was intended to the Marquis of Pescara 
at that time planning to drain the lagoons in order to attack 
Venice, that a Saint might cross the water successfully, but not 
a mortal. 

Is the story of St. Christopher good artistic material ? 
Is Titian's saint too muscular ? Why is he so represented? 
Is there any suggestion of local occupation in the atti- 
tude ? Does Titian show unfamiliarity with fresco paint- 
ing in this work ? 

No. 4156b — St. John the Almsgiver. 

Painted in 1533 for the high altar of S. Giovanni Elemosi- 
nario, Venice. The picture has been disfigured by having its 
arched top cut olif. This unfamiliar saint was bishop and patri- 
arch of Alexandria. 

Is this the natural way of representing the benevolence 


of a church dignitary ? What would the picture have 
gained by being made more concrete, more elaborate ? 
Are the essential facts brought out ? On what is the 
emphasis laid ? Is this in line with Titian s's best w^ork ? 

No. 4660^ — Presentation of the Virgin. 

No. 4162b — Group of 'WitneBses (detail). 

(Old number 3050b .) 

Canvas, 25 X 12 ft. Painted in 1539-40 for the place it now 
occupies, which was the reception room of the Brotherhood of 
S. M. della Carit^, whose convent is now occupied by the 
Academy of Venice. For some time it hung elsewhere, the 
spaces left by the doors being filled by new pieces of canvas. 
The picture contains many contemporary portraits. 

Compare with other pictures of the Presentation: Giotto, 
1046^; Ghirlandajo, 1694^; Carpaccio, 2248^ In what 
respects has Titian surpassed them all ? Are there in 
any of them suggestions of Titian's final success ? Does 
Titian fail to equal them in any way ? In which is the 
story most successfully told ? In which most simply ? 
In which is the attention most immediately directed to 
the central theme ? In what different ways is this 
attention secured ? Is there anything to divide the at- 
tention in this picture ? 

What is the effect upon the picture of the long flight of 
steps ? of the handsome architecture ? of the group of 
Venetian senators at the left ? What incidents of daily 
life arev introduced ? Do they add interest and impres- 
siveness ? 

Is the landscape like others by Titian ? What sug- 
gested it ? Are the mountain forms natural ? 

In what sense is this a typical Venetian picture ? In 
what way does it differ from a Florentine scene ? 

No. 4182b — Danae. 

Four replicas of this subject with but slight variations are 
found in Naples, Madrid, St. Petersburg and Vienna. All seem 
to be originals, though students may have finished the examples 


at St. Petersburg and Vienna. The copy, now in Naples, was 
probably the one seen and praised by Michelangelo, when he 
visited Titian at his apartments in the Belvedere during his 
stay in Rome in 1545. The copy in the collection of the 
Prado was painted in 1554 at the order of Philip II of Spain. 
The dates of the others are not known. 

4i261> . . 

4127b . . 
4129b. . 

4130b . . 
4131b. . 

4136b. . 

4137^- • 
4i3Sb. . 
4150b". . 

4156^. . 

4160b . . 
4162b . . 
4182b . . 

London — National Gallery. Madonna with St. 

London — National Gallery. Bacchus and Ariadne. 
Paris — Louvre. Alphonso d* Este and Laura 

Florence — Ufiizi. Flora. 
Paris — Louvre. The Entombment. 
Venice — Frari. Madonna of the Pesaro Family. 
Madonna and Child, detail of 4136b . 
Donor, detail of 4136b . 
Venice — Ducal Palace. St. Christopher. 
Venice — S. Giovanni Elemosinario. S.t. John tfie 

Venice — Academy. Presentation of the Virgin. 

Group of Witnesses, detail of 4160b , 
Vienna — Imperial Gallery. Danse. 


Xeaeon 4» 


Outline for Study. 

a ~ Titian's Portraits. 

The place of the portrait in art; its late develop- 
ment in Italian art ; the artist's opportunity and 

The portrait in sacred scenes ; Titian's measure 
of success in the Pesaro altarpiece and the 

Titian's portraits of women ; freedom of idealiza- 
tion ; rich costume a handmaiden to his art. 

Portraits . painted " in absentia " : Francis I, Isa- 
bella d' Este, Empress Isabella. 

The romantic quality of Titian's early portraits ; 
his appreciation of masculine qualities and 
success in portraying men ; his power of char- 
b — Great Religious Paintings of Titian's Later Life. 

The great Ecce Homo of Vienna ; other similar 
representations of Christ. The Pilgrims at 
Emmaus ; altarpieces at S. Salvatore. 

Somber character of much of this later work, its 
lack of repose ; change in color scheme. 

Titian's last work, the Pieti ; its dramatic power 
and emotion. 

The master's honored death. 

c — Quality of Titian's Art. 

The great volume of Titian's work, its uniform 
excellence-; masterpieces destroyed by fire. 

The solidity of his work ; perfection of technique 

and freedom from extravagance; his untiring 



Titian's appreciation of the " pride of life " ; lack 
of the highest spiritual qualities ; his virility 
and balance. 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Venetian lady of the sixteenth century. (Yri- 

arte : La vie d'un Patricien). 
Aretino, ''founder of modern journalism." (Beren- 

son : Taine, Florence and Venice.) 
Spanish Kings as art collectors ; the Prado and 

its treasures. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4134b — Jacopo Soranzo (Soranzio). 

A wealthy patrician who, it is said, secured the office of procu- 
rator in 1522 by a large payment of gold. He wears here the 
crimson robe of office. 

Is it the dignity of the office or the character of the 
man that is the first impression from this portrait? 
How has the artist centered attention on the face and 
away from the handsome robes ? What qualities of a 
good portrait are in this picture ? 

No. 4155b — Portr£dt of Aretino. 

Titian painted the portrait of his friend no less than six 
times. This one was done in 1546 for Aretino to present to 
Cosimo de* Medici. Aretino complained that had Titian ex- 
pected to receive a few more scudi for the work, he would have 
taken more pains with the satins and velvets. 

Why has Titian slighted the dress ? Does it indicate 
carelessness ? Has it spoiled the portrait ? Is Areti- 
no*s intellectual ability well brought out? Has Titian 
suggested the disagreeable traits in his friend's char- 
acter ? What is the painter's liberty in such matters ? 
Must portraiture always be pleasing? ^ In what sense can 

it be ? 

No. 4157b — La BeUa. 

This celebrated work, together with a number of others from 
Titian's hand, among them the Venus of Urbino, recalls 


strongly the features of Eleanora Gonzaga, Duchess of Urbino, 
whose portrait as an older woman Titian painted in 1537. The 
costume combines purple brown velvet with peacock blue bro- 
cade, and the entire work is a marvel of softly gorgeous color. 

What station in life does this lady occupy ? Is this 
indicated by her dress alone ? Is there a marked differ- 
ence in this respect between this picture and the Flora 
(4130^)? Why should the rich costume be painted with 
more detail here than in 4138^, or 4155*? 

Has this the vital quality of a portrait from life ? 
Might this same quality be found in a " fancy" picture, 
an idealized portrait ? 

Does this differ in any essential respett from Titian's 
portraits of men ? Is technical skill, the painter's art, 
more evident here ? 

No. 4158 b— The Physician Panna. 

Both Morelliand Berenson pronounce this an' unquestionable 
work of Titian's earlier period. Cook however endeavors to 
place it on Giorgione's list. Nothing is known as to its origin. 

No. 4165b — Howard, Duke of Norfolk. 

This name, which has been popularly connected with this 
portrait, has apparently no basis in fact, and is retained merely 
for convenience. The work belongs to Titian's middle period. 

What qualities have these portraits in common with 
the earlier ones, 4105^, 4108^? Are the differences in 
the men themselves, or in the artist's treatment ? 

Are there suggestions of national physiognomy to ac- 
count for the naming of 4165^? 

Is there the same force of character and decision in 
these two men ? How has Titian expressed that fact ? 
Are high breeding and aristocracy evident ? Is this 
characteristic of Titian ? Does he sacrifice other things 
to it ? Are his portraits perfunctory ? 

No. 4166b — Portrait of Titian. 

One of the finest portraits extant of the artist. A later one 
painted in 1562 is in the Prado. The hands and left arm are 


unfinUbcd, showing in an interesting waj the master's methocis 
of work. 

What gives the sense of life and vigor to this portrait? 
Is there the placidity of successful age in the face? Is 
there self-consciousness ? 

What character has this man? Is the character in 

keeping with his work as we have studied it ? 

Ho. 4ie8i> — Pope Paul IIL 

Painted during Titian's visit to Rome in 1545. A triple por- 
trait of the pope with his two grandsons, which for some reason 
was never completed, is also in the Naples Gallery. 

Compare with Raphael's popes, Julius II and Leo X. 
Which painter had the better opportunity ? Which has 
more carefully studied the character before him? In 
which picture is there the least accessory detail ? Is any 
one an unsympathetic portrait ? Is the reverence due 
the Holy Office evident ? 

How does this compare with Titian's other portraits ? 

What is worthy of note in Titian's painting of the hand ? 

No. 4169^ — Lavlnia bearing a Salver of Fmit. 

In this picture in the Berlin Gallery and a similar one of 
Salome in the Prado, the familiar features of Titian's daughter 
have been freely treated and idealized. A portrait of Lavinia as 
a bride is in the Dresden Gallery. 

In what sense is this not a portrait ? What different 

treatment would a portrait require ? Compare with the 

portraits just studied. Is this sort of treatment more 

satisfactory than portraiture as a work of art ? Does it 

offer more opportunities to the artist ? 

No. 4172b — The Great Ecce Homo. 

Canvas, 12x8 ft., figures less than life size. Painted in 1543 
for Giovanni d' Anna, son of a Flemish merchant. The features 
of Aretino are given to Pilate, the youthful Lavinia is seen near 
the center, while the horseman at the right is thought to be a 
member of the d' Este family. 

Is this picture full of dramatic action ? Where does 
the interest center ? How successfully is this accom- 


plished? Is this a customary grouping? Has Titian 
used a similar arrangement elsewhere ? 

Is the figure of Christ a pathetic one ? a majestic one ? 
What is the interpretation of Pilate's attitude? Why is 
he represented with Aretino's features ? Was it a com- 
pliment to his friend ? 

How realistic is this scene ? What details are intro- 
duced for that purpose ? Does it carry the spectator 
back to the event itself ? How does it compare with the 
Entombment in that respect ? 

Is it an imposing picture ? an impressive one ? Is it 
great technically ? by reason of its dramatic emotions ? 

No. 4176b —Charles V at MiiUberg. 

This life-size portrait of the great Emperor was painted dur- 
ing Titian's first visit at Augsburg in 1548, to commemorate the 
victory of the Imperial over the Protestant forces the year be- 
fore. The Elbe is dimly seen in the distance, the sky, a deep 
crimson at the horizon, is warmly lighted, serving to set off to 
the full the martial figure. ** It is the first, as it is the greatest, 
of the vast equestrian portraits of monarchs by court painters." 

What advantage has such a portrait over one of the 
ordinary kind ? What limitations does it impose on the 
artist ? 

What gives the sense of command, of majesty to this 
picture ? Is the horse obtrusive ? In what way does it 
contribute to the success of the piece ? Might the lance 
have been omitted ? Why does Titian so often mass his 
trees on one side of the picture ? What is the effect here ? 

What is the character expressed in the Emperor's face ? 
Is there anything to indicate that Titian has idealized it ? 
Why is he represented as alone ? Would an army in the 
distance add vividness and reality ? Has Titian sug- 
gested in this a character trait of Charles V? 

No. 4185b — Christ Crowned with Thorns. 

Long in S. M. della Grazie, Milan, now in the Louvre. The 
color is extremely rich, but has almost the effect of mono- 
chrome. A similar picture is in Munich. 


What gives the agitated appearance to this group? Is 
it the action alone ? What remarkable effects of texture 
and material in this work ? 

How is the attitude of the Christ figure to be explained ? 
Compare the Christ with that of the Ecce Homo, the 
Tribute Money. Why the change of type ? What is 
gained ? What element of immobility in this disturbed 
scene ? What is intended by this contrast ? 

No. 4198b —The Depoaition. 

On canvas, 12-i-x 11^ ft. Begun in 1576 for the Franciscan 
monks of the Frari, in exchange for a burial place in their 
church. Some difficulties arose and Titian was eventuallv 
buried in Cadore. The aged artist in his 99th year was still at 
work upon this picture at the time of his death. It was ** rever- 
ently completed " by Palma Giovane. 

What are the figures on either side of the niche ? What 
effect have they upon the composition ? upon the mean- 
ing of the picture ? What contrast do they afford to the 
central theme ? 

What is unusual in the arrangement o the central 
group ? In what way is the tragedy of the event ex- 
pressed ? Compare with Michelangelo's last work. 

But a very inadequate idea of this wonderful work of Titian's 
last years can be obtained by one who has not seen its color. 
Dark, subdued, almost monochrome in e^ect, there is still in 
the gray green of the masonry and the sculptured lions' heads, 
in the deep green and purple of the robes of the Magdalen, a 
well-nigh indescribable sensuous impression which adds ten- 
fold to the pathos and poignancy of the tragic scene, making 
this one of the very greatest of this great master's works. 

General Questions on Titian, 

In what ways does Titian's art show the influence of 
Giorgione ? Is it by way of imitation ? Does he use 
landscape in the same way ? How important an ele- 
ment is that in his art ? / 

In what spirit does Titian treat the Madonna theme ? 


In what pictures is the devotional spirit supreme ? Is 
he a religious painter ? Is this a limitation on his art ? 

How strong is Titian's feeling for beauty of face and 
form, for fullness of life ? What artist has surpassed 
him in these respects ? 

What phase of life does Titian treat most sympatheti- 
cally, most powerfully ? Was he narrow in his sympa- 
thies ? Was his range limited ? 

What role does the technician play in his work ? Does 
he select subjects with a view to their technical difficul- 
ties ? Gf. Correggio. Was this because of technical 
inability ? 

What direction does his art take in later life ? Are 
there signs of deterioration ? Is the virile side of life 
emphasized at the expense of beauty ? What comprom- 
ise does Titian make between the actual and the ideal ? 

4155^ . 

4157*^ . 

4158b . 

4165b . 

4166 . 

4168b . 

4169b . 

4173b . 

4176b , 

4185b . 

4198b . 


Venice — Academy. Portrait of Jacopo Soranzo. 
Florence — Pitti. Portrait of Aretino. 
Florence — Pitti. La Bella. 

Vienna — Imperial Gallery. The Physician Parma. 
Florence — Pitti. Howard, Duke of Norfolk. 
Berlin — Old Museum. Portrait of Titian. 
Naples — National Museum. Pope Paul III. 
Berlin — Old Museum. Lavinia bearing a Salver 

of Fruit. 
Vienna — Imperial Gallery. The Great Ecce Homo, 
Madrid — Prado. Charles V at Miihlberg. 
Paris — Louvre. Christ crowned with Thorns. 
Venice — Academy. The Deposition. 


American Architect — 1889. v. 26. 287; 1890, v. 27. 60. 
Art Journal — 1886. v. 38. 85; 132. 

Berenson Venetian Painters. 38-40; 44-48; 171-177. 

Boullier L'Art Venitien. 

Century Magazine — 1891-2, v. 21. (Titian.) 
Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Life and Times of Titian. 
Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 


Eastlake Five Great Painters. 

Gilbert Cadore : Titian's Country. 

Gilbert ...... Landscape in Art. 341-356. 

Gronau Tizian. 

Harper's Magazine — 1877. v. 55, September, 494. 

Heath Titian. 

Heaton History of Painting. 161-168. 

Knackfuss .... Tizian. (In German.) 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 590-608. 

Lafenestre .... La vie et 1' oeuvre de Titien. 

Madrazo Catalogo del Prado. 

Masters in Art — 1900. Part 2. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 40-46 ; 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. II. 39-40, note; 55-62; 


Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 174-176; 621-640. 

Nineteenth century — 1900. v. 47 ; 793. 

North American Review — 1899. v. 169, October. 

Oliphant Makers of Venice. Part III, ch. 2 ; Part IV, 

ch. 3. 

Phillips Earlier Work of Titian . 

Phillips Later Work of Titian. 

Rea Tuscan Artists. 85-87 ; 90-97. 

Stearns Four Great Venetians. 47-178. 

Stillman Old Italian Masters. 238-245. 

Symonds . . , . . Fine Arts. 330-333 ; 355-3^; 379-382. 
Symonds • . . . . Revival of Learning. 373-391. (Aldus). 
Taine Florence and Venice. 285-293 (Aretino); 


Vasari Lives, etc. v. IV. 255-303. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 613- 

Yriarte La vie d' un patricien de Venise. Ch. 2. 

(La femme en Venise.) 



Number Fifteen. 

(Bioraionc an^ tbe flew Hrt 


To understand the meaning of Giorgione and his place 
in Venetian art we must .briefly recall the work of his 
predecessors and the condition of art as he found it. Of 
the earliest Venetians it is hardly necessary to speak in 
detail. The beginning was not unlike that of other 
Italian schools. As Venice begins to be conscious of 
independent life and impulses her scarce perceptible in- 
novations are based on much the same foundation of 
conventional mediaeval art, which for lack of a better 
name and in oversight of its local peculiarities we call 
byzantine. There is the same flat background in gold 
or blue, the same attention to frame and decorative 
accessories, the same stereotyped forms and expression- 
less faces which, in contrast with the greater naturalness 
and expressiveness of the later art with which we are 
familiar, has given an impression of uniformity to a 
really diversified art. The earliest Venetian departures 
are not impressively prophetic. The altarpieces of the 
Venetian primitives are huge, cumbersome affairs with 
monumental thrones and rich but impossible draperies, 
but exceedingly little expression of countenance or sug- 
gestion of reality and life. To one familiar with a Giotto, 
the paintings of an Antonio Vivarini or the Muranese 
cut a sorry figure. The attitude is not one of protest or 
revolt against byzantine conventions so much as that of 
enthusiasm for the byzantine spirit and desire to advance 
further along this line. Such is the meaning of even the 
great Crivelli. There is no effort to make the Madonna 
vividly human or to exploit the possibilities of incident 
or human sentiment as in the work of Giotto. The stiff 
setting is willingly retained ; the faces are neglected or 

unconsciously caricatured ; the mediaeval medley of 
painting and relief is grotesquely continued. But the 
fabrics are enriched, still life in color is introduced or 
developed and the glory of Venetian color is distinctly 

John Bellini lifts Venetian art to a higher plane, estab- 
lishing new ideals for art, and in his long life of un- 
remitting industry and exceptional unity of purpose, 
approaching very near to their complete attainment. 
Concerned as we instinctively are, primarily, with human 
beings and sentiments we are struck with the immense 
advance of this artist's mature work over both the work 
of earlier artists and his own earlier work. Now for the 
first time the Madonna is not only real and human, but 
she expresses at her best the great meaning of the ma- 
donna theme in art. The deep earnestness, the larger 
power of sympathy, the fuller reserve and self restraint, 
the memory of sadness which has left not bitterness but 
soul enlargement, all that Christianity with its age-long 
travail has meant to the race and has wrought out in it, 
this mystery of meaning in the human face has nowhere 
better manifested itself in art than in Bellini's Madonna 
of the Trees or the Madonna of San Zaccaria. In soft- 
ening and humanizing the traditional attitudes the artist, 
though less successful than in facial expression, was still 
memorable in his achievements. This is especially 
noticeable in the Madonna of San Zaccaria. Seldom 
have figures stood more gracefully or in more beautiful 
repose than in this wonderful picture. Only the child, 
that stone of stumbling to all the Christian artists, baffles 
his skill. 

The spiritual and human qualities of this great artist's 
work are scarcely more striking, however, than his con- 
tributions to the sensuous side of art. His early pictures 
are strangely lacking in sensuous charm. The figures 
are hard outlined and ill colored with nothing of studied 

harmony or modulation. At the other end of his career, 
however, he stands a consummate master of color and 
shadow. The Madonna of San Zaccaria is one of the 
most delicate harmonies in the strong, rich colors which 
the Venetians love, and these colors are blended by means 
of shadow masses in a way that leaves little for any sub- 
sequent painter to accomplish. Along this most impor- 
tant line the development of Venetian art is complete. 

But a second view of John Bellini's work is quite as 
impressive in an opposite way. With all his innovations 
he remains astonishingly conservative and old-fashioned 
in spirit. This is seen among other things in the build 
or construction of his picture. First of all we note their 
absolute symmetry. The Madonna always exactly faces 
us as does the throne on which she sits, and even the 
architectural niche in which it is placed. On either side 
stand saints, exactly equal in number, height, sex and 
even in attitude and expression. A favorite arrangement 
is to have a female saint on either side facing the en- 
throned Madonna, and beyond them a male saint a little 
taller and facing somewhat outward. Even the trees, 
when introduced, are exact mates in both size and 

Having noticed this peculiarity of the older (art, it is 
easy to find others. The attitudes, so modern in their 
ease and grace, are mediaeval in their essence. The Ma- 
donna of San Zaccaria tips her head precisely as in the 
byzantine paintings, only with more softened lines. The 
figures on either side are in attitudes known for centu- 
ries, only more relaxed and restful. The child retains the 
mediaeval stiffness, almost unmodified. These facts are 
significant. The painter was conservative in instinct and 
felt no other impulse than to transfigure the older art 
without altering its essential aim or character. To him 
the deep religious spirit of the older art was the only true 
one. It had only been insufficiently expressed. The 


whole cast and build of traditional painting was essenti- 
ally correct. It merely required greater skill in execu- 
tion. Modern in method, he is an ancient in conception 
and sympathy. 

It was reserved for the mysterious Giorgione to make 
the transition in this deeper and more vital sense. Bom 
of uncertain parentage, apparently a waif in a small 
Venetian town, even his very family name unmentioned 
in the single autograph which preserves his nickname 
to us, his early death and the untoward fate of most of 
his paintings, complete the mystery of his existence. Yet 
no artist has made a more certain place for himself than 
he, or left a profounder influence on art. Gifted with 
unrivaled subtlety of perception and the most exquisite 
of fancies, the methods and purposes of the older art are 
to him as though they were not. He not only does not 
follow them as did Bellini, he seems not even to know 
of their existence. This, too, in spite of the fact that he 
began with conventional themes and treated them in a 
superficially conventional way. Such is the impression 
derived from a glance at the Madonna of Castelfranco, 
the proud possession of his native town and the only ex- 
tant work from his hand which can read its title clear in 
absolute documentary evidence. This beautiful work at 
first looks even less modern than the best of Bellini. 
The Madonna sits as usual, enthroned in state, a saint 
on either side and the whole facing us and with little 
effort to modify the conventional attitudes of the atten- 
dant figures. The child is hardly more human than Belli- 
ni's. The Madonna herself, though different and exquis- 
itely beautiful in her delicate and refined feeling, is hardly 
a new creation or altogether superior to the Madonna of 
San Zaccaria painted in the same year. So far the great 
pupil might seem to be emulating and hardly surpassing 
his master. 

But with all these parallels and resemblances there 



are differences, arbitrary enough at first sight, but so 
much the more significant as revealing the artist's un- 
trammeled choice. The Madonna is set much higher than 
in other pictures, and correspondingly reduced in scale. 
The attendant saints stand low against a background 
of wall, above which is seen an extensive landscape 
which is little interrupted by the slender figure of the 
Madonna. In a word, this picture is a landscape, and 
by an amazing innovation the Madgnna is enthroned 
out of doors^ the throne backing against the open view, 
with no architectural framing, nothing whatever to ex- 
plain its improbable position. Lower the throne nearer 
to the level of the pavement, carry up the wall and build 
it out into symmetrical architecture and you have the 
traditional madonna consistent and complete. Why 
this inartistic perching of the figure, this inexplicable 
enthronement on the top of a garden wall and this pave- 
ment which recalls .a church which is not there ? But 
one answer seems possible. Giorgione was commis- 
sioned to paint a madonna and accepts the commission, 
nothing loath. But his real interest is in certain artistic 
aspects of nature which he has been the first to perceive. 
He wants a landscape background instead of the formal 
architecture of Bellini. It does not occur to him that 
such a background is wholly inappropriate for a throne, 
or if it does, this is something regarding which he is 
not free to choose. He obliterates the architecture 
merely to put in the thing he cares for. And having 
done this, he lowers the saints for the same reason. 
The picture with all its beauty is a grotesque compromise 
between time-honored tradition and the new impulse 
which from this time on masters all his work. 

Having discovered the artist's true animus it behooves 
us to inquire what Giorgione found in nature and what 
kind of landscapes he paints. For this we may well 
enlarge our field of observation. Of the half dozen 


other paintings, reasonably identified as the work of 
Giorgione, at least three are essentially landscapes, the 
Picnic (F^te Champetre), the Tempest and the Three 
Philosophers. These all have prominent figures which 
are represented with much care and present problems 
of special interest, but in all the nature setting is par- 
amount and gives the main character to the picture. 
Considering these like the Madonna, with reference to 
this special feature, what do we find that is new or sig- 
nificant ? It should be remembered first of all that the 
question is in its nature hard to answer. It is easier to 
feel it than to state it. It is much easier to put into 
words our impressions about faces than our impressions 
about nature, simply because we are more in the habit of 
doing so and correspondingly better trained. It is none 
the less worth trying here. 

In general way, the whole thing is new. We are not 
unfamiliar with these semi-landscape pictures in the Vene- 
tian art but so vague are our notions of chronology that 
we seldom inquire who started the fashion. The fact is 
that we meet them here essentially for the first time. Belli- 
ni 's pictures painted before this time give us a fair idea 
of the attainments of the Venetians in landscape up to 
this time. The trees in the picture already referred to 
are chiefly interesting as indicating the artist's ignorance 
of nature and lack of feeling for it. The narrow strips 
of quasi landscape on either side of the Madonna of 
San Zaccaria are about the limit of Bellini's landscape 
art. What do they amount to ? Their sole purpose is to 
make plain to the spectator the presence of windows in 
the elaborate architecture which it was the artist's delight 
to build about his pictures. The trees exist for the sake 
of the windows. In Giorgione's art the windows exist 
for the sake of the trees ; nay, rather, for their sake win- 
dows and architecture are abolished altogether. Gior- 
gione is therefore to be credited, not merely with a spe- 


ciality in landscape, but with the very existence of land- 
scape in Venetian art. Nay, more ; in his art alone 
landscape is paramount, the figures being almost as 
accessory to it as in the work of Corot. 

But a mere personal interest in out-door nature would 
not have sufficed to commend landscape painting to 
Venetian artists or their patrons. To do this it was nec- 
essary that the painter should discover in his theme a 
new and unsuspected charm and make that apparent in 
his work. In what does the charm of Giorgione's land- 
scapes consist? 

There are essentially two kinds of landscapes. The 
one is made up of trees, rocks, houses, grass and various 
other objects which exist out of doors. Nothing is 
more arid in art than these anatomical landscapes, no 
matter how comprehensive their inventory or how accu- 
rate the representation. They are expressionless, feel- 
ingless, utterly without poetical or emotional suggestion. 
Even if the artist travels far, or draws upon his imagina- 
tion, to find picturesque combinations of tree and cliff 
and castle and calls to his aid some poem or legend by 
the choice of a catchy title, his work has but a super- 
ficial and extrinsic charm. The other class of landscapes 
regard these thingy elements of nature as accessories, 
mere background on which is cast the moving panorama 
of atmospheric haze and color, light and shadow, the 
mobile or inconstant elements in nature to which all ex- 
pressiveness in the aspect of nature is due. Take an 
analogy. Why is the human face more expressive than 
the rest of the figure, say the back ? Simply because 
the features are mobile and are accustomed to so adjust 
themselves as to express the changing moods of the in- 
dividual. Hence we have learned to study the face and 
by suggestion to feel the moods which it expresses. If 
the features never changed the face would mean nothing 
to us and we should have no interest in contemplating it. 


It is precisely the same with nature. The stones and 
shrubs and houses do not change or change only inap- 
preciably. They are not interpretive of Nature's moods. 
But it is precisely these moods which are our chief con- 
cern. The difference between rain and shine, between 
twilight and noon, morning and night, calm and tempest, 
these in infinite variety are the mood aspects of nature 
to which our feeling adjusts itself with such delicacy as 
its character permits. It is hardly necessary to add that 
as the true portrait is an interpretation of character as 
expressed in thought and feeling, rather than a mere 
study of bones and flesh, so the true landscape is an 
interpretation of Nature's moods, a representation of the 
changing things which make her smile and her frown 
a picture of air and light and shadow rather than a mere 
picture of rocks and trees. 

This is Giorgione's discovery in Venetian art. His 
landscapes are not so different from other landscapes as 
regards their background of common things, but the ver- 
iest novice feels the difference. Take the landscape 
background of the Madonna of Castelfranco. There is 
nothing particular about hill or tree or building. This 
body of nature is wholly ordinary. But the soul of 
nature is there, the atmosphere that blends and dims all 
objects, the play of shadow and of light. It is instinct 
with feeling and poetry. Or again the Three Philoso- 
phers. The dark masses are apparently composed of 
rock and foliage but it is surprising how little we can 
make out of either. The shadow which these things 
cast means far more to Giorgione than the things them- 
selves. The mystery of shadow, the elusiveness and 
thrill of light, the soft harmonies of color, these are to 
the mystic poet of Venice an inexhaustible inspiration. 
The commonplace things of out-door nature are to him 
the mere stage on which these intangible spirits disport 
themselves in the great panorama. 


Of these spiritual elements there is one that Giorgione 
woos with especial success and makes the chief vehicle 
of his thought, namely shadow. A glance at his pictures 
will show that he has not hesitated to invoke them quite 
beyond the measure of nature. Take again the Three 
Philosophers. It is apparently a scene in broad day- 
light, yet the cliff on the left and the foliage on the right 
cast shadows so dense that all detail is lost in their im- 
penetrable gloom. Even the tree, outlined against the 
clear sky, is without modeling or markings, a silhouette 
blackened in its own shadow. These dense shadows, 
devoid of transparency, characterize his work through- 
out and give to it that mystic suggestion so woefully 
lacking in the photographic renderings of nature by some 
of his would-be imitators. 

Turning now from landscape to figures, it is clear that 
this conjuring with shadow is still a principal resource. 
Notice the faces of the two standing philosophers, the 
dark silhouetted mass of hair which so sets off the clear 
countenance of their sitting companion. Notice, too, the 
face of the shepherd in the Tempest, and above all the 
faces of the two young men in the Picnic. And now that 
we have noticed these shadows we shall have no diffi- 
culty in noticing the great weight and contrast of the 
shadows used in modeling. Notice the legs of the 
shepherd or the outlines and shadows of the nude figures 
in the Picnic. In these mysterious shadow masses 
Giorgione's figures dwell under conditions of heightened 
suggestion which give them an incalculable mood-creating 
, power. There is a poetry and a mystic spell about his 
creations which has been felt by all beholders for four 
hundred years. The Three Philosophers have an 
indescribable power over the imagination, a power in 
which person and nature conspire together and which 
with all its magic is utterly unobtrusive and devoid of 


Passing from these composite pictures to his far-famed 
portraits we note the close kinship between the two. 
The doubtful Shepherd Boy, a masterly imitation in form 
and spirit if not an original, admirably illustrates this 
new manner. The face has no outlines, not even per- 
fectly outlined features. Through heavy masses of en- 
veloping shadow is dimly seen this exquisite face whose 
dreamy beauty is one of the truest of art's inspirations. 
It would be difficult to overestimate the loss in emotional 
power which this picture would suffer if the shadow 
were banished and the features brought out in scientific 

This shadow art once mastered, it serves purposes at 
first unnoticed. The obtrusive masses of hair which an 
inartistic fashion compelled him to paint in the Berlin 
portrait are made almost unnoticeable by the obedient 
shadows which screen them from our impatient gaze. 
Everywhere the trivial and accidental hides behind the 
shadows, leaving the salient and important in clearer em- 
phasis. Shadow thus becomes the great modulator and 
guide of attention. 

But most important of all, perhaps, shadow becomes 
the solvent or blender of color. No glaring masses of 
color affront each other with vivid outlines, but under the 
mantle of shadow theyblend in a mystic union. Impos- 
sible combinations become easy, harshness becomes soft- 
ened, and the loud hues of nature are infinitely enriched 
by the aid of the same great magician. The idyllic 
poetry and subtle sentiment of Giorgione was not des- 
tined to survive him or to become the heritage of Vene-. 
tian art. The glorious virility and pervasive sanity of 
Titian's art does not recall the dreamy gaze of the Three 
Philosophers who listen to the voice of an invisible 
muse. But the color glories of Giorgione's art become 
in the work of the great worldling an ever richer and 
more voluptuous melody, exalting to heaven these 


earth-born pleasures of sense. Here at least Giorgione's 
influence was enduring and there are none to dispute his 

It is ungracious as it is unprofitable to dwell upon the 
shortcomings of so great an artist, so true a son of inspira- 
tion. We are not easily reconciled to the half-and-half 
work of the Madonna of Castelfranco, beautiful as are 
its component parts. Deeper still is our protest against 
the incredibly bad taste with which he mingles nude 
women with gaily dressed young men, a fault which even 
the marvelous beauty of face and figure cannot make us 
forget. Finally, it is not without regret that we note the 
complete disappearance of the deep religious spirit which 
had given to his master the noblest inspirations. The 
inevitable day has come, and art has slipped the leash of 
religious control and claims the world for its parish. Its 
appeal is more universal and eternal but less cogent and 
intelligible than when confined to the narrow channel 
which hems the current of common life. But the change 
was inevitable and the sacrifice worth while. The Chris- 
tian art had outgrown its theme. Who wants more 
madonnas ? Certainly not those who care most for those 
we have. Let us be thankful that he who first cut loose 
from the spiritual tutelage of the church was so deeply 
conscious of the spirit that dwells in nature. 


Special' Bibliograpb^?. 

Number FifteexL 

Allen, Grant. Venice (Historical Guides). N. Y., 
Wessels, 1900. $1.25. 

Berenson, Bernhard. Lorenzo Lotto ; an Essay in Con- 
structive Criticism. 111. N. Y., Putnam, 1895. $3.50. 

Although this book was mentioned in Special Bibliography Number 
Seven we cannot refrain from reminding the student again of its very great 
value as an exhaustive study of a painter of whom little nas been written. 

Blanc, C. Ecole Venitienne. 

This volume of Histoire des Peintres contains loner articles on minor 
painters of whom we iind but scant mention in the Cnglish language. This 
work may be found in numerous public libraries that contain little if any 
Italian literature, so is almost our only source of information regarding cer- 
tain artists. 

Holbom, J. B. Stoughton. Jacopo Robusti, called Tin- 
toretto. Great Masters in Painting and Sculpture. 111. 
London, Bell, 1903. $1.75. 

This volume takes the form of an essay rather than a biography. 

Jackson, Frank Hamilton. Litarsia and Marquetry. 

111. N. Y., Scribner, 1903. $2.00. 

a history of the art with numerous descriptions, and carefully selected 
illustrations. It is one of a series of books for craftsmen. 

Knackfuss. Kunstler.Monographien. Paolo Veronese. 

Tintoretto. N. Y., Lemcke & Buechner. $1.50. 

Martinengo Cesaresco, Countkss Evelyn. Lombard 
Studies. N. Y., Scribner. $3.50. 

Essays written in an easy, interesting manner on Lombard scenery and 
customs of today, together with some account of the history of certain old 

Osier, W. RoscoE. Tintoretto. Great Artists Series. N. Y., 

Scribner, 1879. $1.25. 

Steams, Frank Preston. Liie and G^enius of Jacopo 
Robusti, called Tintoretto. N. Y., Putman, 1894. $2.25. 

The student when first entering this field of study is perplexed on finding 

material on the Venetian painters after Titian and 
had D< 

so little biographical material on the Venetian paintc 

Giorgione. Mr. Stearns' work, written before interest in the history of art 
)ecome widespread, is somewhat lacking in orderly arrangement and 
classification; but it is a contribution to the subject for which the reader may 
feel sincerely grateful. 

Taine, Henri. Italy: Florence and Venice. N. Y., Holt- 


Uniform with Rome and Naples. 

"Wiel, Alethea. The Story of Verona. London, Dent, 
1902. $1.50. 

Triarte, C. Paul Veronese. Les Artistes Celebres. Paris, 

Librairie de I'Art. 1888. 


Xe00on I. 

The term Venetian School includes not only painters born 
and educated in the city of the lagoons, but those of the prov- 
inces of Venetia, Emilia and Lombardy, whose style was mod- 
eled on Giorgione and Titian, although retaining some charac- 
teristics of the-earlier local schools. 

( Jacopo d' Antonio Palma. ) 14807-1528. 

Outline for Study. 

Palma's birthplace ; local traits in his paintings. 

His artistic education ; relationship of his art 
to that of Giorgione and Titian ; the common 
fund from which they drew. 

Palma's early or Bellinesque manner. 

St. Barbara, the masterpiece of his Giorgionesque 
or developed period ; vigor and brilliancy of 
his work ; its lack of subtlety. 

His third or blonde manner ; the Three Sisters ; 
Jacob and Rachel. 

Palma's ideal of female beauty; his responsive- 
ness to the sumptuous character of Venetian 
life ; his distinction as a portrait painter. 

Palma's development of the " Santa Conversa- 
zione " (Holy Conversation) theme. 

Contradictory estimates of his influence on Vene- 
tian painting ; his pupils. 

Topic for Further Research. 

Local and independent schools included under 
the general name Venetian School. (Nine- 
teenth Century magazine, 1890, v. 28, No- 
vember, 786-800.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4202b — Santa Barbara. 

Central panel of the altar piece, painted, 1515, for the com- 


pany of Venetian Artillerists whovse patron saint she was ; the 
figure is over life size. At the sides are other panels contain- 
ing full-length figures of St. Anthony and St. Sebastian, St. 
John Baptist and St. Dominic. Above, in a lunette, is a Piela. 

What symbols identify the saint? Is martyrdom sug- 
gested by her bearing and expression ? Is the idea of 
martyrdom made more pathetic and impressive by repre- 
senting the saint in the full enjoyment of strength, beauty 
and luxury? 

Is there a psychological resemblance between this and 
other women in Palma's pictures ? A physical resem- 
blance ? Is the type suited to a religipus subject ? 

Compared with other pictures by Palma does this in- 
dicate superior mastery ? 

No. 4205b — Madonna enthroned with Saints. 

(St. Lucia and St. George.) 

Is the space agreeably filled ? How does it compare 
in that respect with 4230^ ? Has Palma always a sense 
of pictorial fitness? 

Is there a center of attention? Cf. 4215^. What 
does St. Lucia offer the Child ? Are the accessories 
necessary to a full interpretation ? Are they disturbing ? 

Is there a dramatic tendency ? Is it spectacular ? Is 
the movement of the group free ? graceful ? 

Does the dignity imposed by religious restraint add to, 
or detract from, the charm of a picture ? 

No. 4210b — Three Sisters. 

Painted 1525, on wood, 3x4 feet. Formerly in the Casa Con- 
tarini, Venice. The best example of Palma's blonde manner. 

What value has this group as an interpretation of 
character? Cf. 4229^. As an exponent of the times? 
As a type of beauty? As pictorial composition ? As a 
representation of textures? Cf. 3526^. Is it charac- 
terized by naturalness? refinement? subtlety? Does 
the type of hand recur in Palma's pictures ? Is the 
background disturbing? Cf. 4215^. 

No. 4212^ — Jacob and Rachel. 

One of the many paintings formerly ascribed to Giorgione. 
Now recognized as an example of Palma*s latest manner. 

Is this designed in the spirit of Scripture narrative ? 
Where has the artist given free play to his imagination ^ 
What anachronisms are there ? 

Does the distribution of light tend to confusion ? Why 
does the eye pass smoothly and unchecked over the 
scene ? Is this true of other pictures by Palma ? 

What other painters have treated foliage in this man- 
ner? What" evidence of close study of nature? Are 
there any violations of nature ? 

No. 4215^ — Santa Conversazione. 

*' Holy Conversations " were among Palma's favorite themes. 
This picture was discovered in private possession in Venice dur- 
ing the winter of 1900-1901. It was carefully cleaned and is 
now one of the most enjoyable examples of Palma's work in 
the Academv of Venice. 

How does this picture differ from 4205^ in subject, 
sentiment, treatment? Is one better suited than the 
other for a church picture ? 

Who is the figure on the right ? Is the sack against 
which he rests a religious symbol ? Does this picture 
suggest Titian's influence? Cf. 4136^. 

No. 4225b — Portrait of a Toung Lady. 

One of the numerous examples of Raima's portraits of Vene- 
tian beauties. 

No. 4229b — ArioBto. 

Formerly ascribed to Titian. It is certainly not his work and 
almost as certainly not a portrait of Ariosto, its traditional 
title. A recent writer has endeavored to identify it with Pros- 
pero Colonna, an Italian warrior of high birth belonging to 
this period. (See Magazine of Art, 1893.) 

Are these portraits similar in modeling ? in handling 
of drapery and contours ? in strength and vitality ? in 
character expression ? in poetic conception ? How do 
they resemble and how differ from 4210^? 


General Questions, 

Has Palma treated landscape and figures as equally 
important elements ? 

Do his draperies indicate an interest in textures or 
merely in effects of light and dark ? 

Is his composition spontaneous, unaffected or does it 
suggest study of scientific arrangement ? Does he skil- 
fully fill the space at command ? 

What is the general character of his landscape — of 
foliage ? 

Are his people serious, absorbed in the ostensible 
object of interest ? 

•Do the proportions of Palma's figures differ from 
those of contemporary painters ? Are his types refined ? 

How can the portrait be distinguished from the ideal- 
ized or generalized face ? 

4202b . . . Venice — S. M. Formosa: St. Barbara. 

4205b . . . Vicenza — S. Stefano : Madonna Enthroned. 

4210b . . . Dresden — Gallery: Three Sisters. 

4212b . . , Dresden — Gallery: Jacob and Rachel. 

4215b . , . Venice — Academy: Santa Conversazione. 

4225b . . . Vienna — Imperial Gallery: Portrait of Young 


4229b . . , London — National Gallery: Ariosto (questioned). 

Berenson .... Ventian Painters. 1 18-120. 

Blanc Ecole V^nitienne. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. II. 456-493. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 337-339. 

Heaton History of Painting. 160. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 563-567. 

Magazine of Art — 1893. v. 16. March, 156-161 ; April, 202- 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 13-17 ; 

24-31; 182-183; 373- 

Morelli ..... Italian Painters. v. I. 240-242 ; 273-277 ; 

294-297 ;v. II. 16-19; 27-32; 38-45; 239-241. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 303-309. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 604- 


LORENZO LOTTO. 1476?-1555? 

Outline for Study, 

Evidences of Lotto's training under Alvise Viv- 

Lotto's wandering life ; the varied influences 
under which he was brought and his respons- 
, Visit to Rome ; resemblances in his work to 
Raphael's ; to Correggio's. 

Intimacy with Palma Vecchio. 

Lotto's residence in Bergamo, 15 13-1525 ; great 
altarpieces of this period ; the intarsia work of 
Santa Maria Maggiore ; development of Lotto's 

Religious temper of Lotto's work ; his sensitive- 
ness and his poetic temperament ; the fantastic 

Psychological interest of Lotto's portraits. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Venice the intellectual and reform center of Italy 
in the early sixteenth century. 

The Council of Trent and the Counter- reforma- 

Intarsia ; its relation to engraving. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4230b — Madonna with Saints. 

Canvas, 17 feet in height. Completed 15 16 for San Stefano, 
Bergamo, by order of Alessandro Martinengo, grandson of the 
great General Colleoni. In 1561 it was transferred to San Bartol- 


ommeo where it now hangs. Three panels of its predella are 
in the Gallery at Bergamo : the tj^mpanum is in private pos- 

The two saints at the left are portraits of Alessandro Martin^ 
engo and his wife Barbara. 

Account for the intensity of emotion. all of the 
worshipers animated by one thought, or is this a varied 
character study? 

What effect have the attitudes of Mother and Child ? 
Is there any suggestion of the fantastic ? Is the act of 
the little angels in the foreground appropriate ? By 
what device or devices have the restless movements of 
the figures been counteracted ? How have depth and 
air been obtained ? 

Did Lotto revert to earlier Venetian traditions m his 
treatment of this theme ? Are the decorative accesso- 
ries common in contemporaneous Venetian art? In 
Giovanni Bellini ? 

Cf. 4205^. Which is the more inspired composition? 

No. 4240b — Adoration of Shepherds. 

On canvas. Figures half the size of life. There is a tradi- 
tion in Brescia that this picture came from Treviso. The shep- 
herds are probably portraits. 

What suggests divinity in the Child ? Does the picture 
appeal to us because of its revelation of the artist's char- 
acter, its intrinsic charm, its elevated theme or for some 
other potent reason ? 

What proofs of portraiture are here ? Does the pic- 
ture gain or lose in artistic interest thereby ? Why do 
the angels lay hands upon the shepherds? Why are 
they smaller ? 

What picturesque accessories give the picture a modern 
air ? What details take from the breadth of treatment ? 

Is there a spirit of devoutness in this and 4230^? 

No. 4235b —The Brothers della Torre. 

On canvas. Painted 15 15 for Niccol6 della Torre, a noble- 


man of Bergamo. The seated figure is Agostino della Torre, 
professor in the University of Padua. It has been suggested, for 
an obvious reason, that the first intention was to paint this 
single portrait only, and that the figure of Niccolo was an after- 

No. 4238l> — Portrait of Unknown Touth. 

On wood. II X 13 in. 

No. 4247b — Donna Laura da Pola (?). 

On canvas, life size. One of Lotto's very best works. It is 
known that in 1544 he painted the portraits of Messer Febo of 
Brescia and his wife, Laura da Pola, and there is little doubt that 
they are the companion portraits now in the Brera. 

Are these examples of sound construction in draw- 
ing ? Are all well placed in the frame ? Do they por- 
tray character of poetic quality, of refinement ? Are 
they intensely vital ? How do they compare in subtlety 
with 4225^, 4229^? 

Would they be as interesting if the dress were less 
elegant ? What is the significance of the book ? Are 
they mere naturalistic studies ? Has the artist infused 
into them his own individuality ? Or has he been at- 
tracted by a trait common to all ? Is there a resemblance 
between Donna Laura and his idealized faces in 4230^, 

Has the painter sacrificed breadth and quietness to 
his fondness for sparkling lights ? 

No. 4249b — Three Ages of Man. 

The authorship of this work has iong been a matter of dis- 
pute. Traditionally by Lotto, Morelli would give it to Giorgi- 
one and Berenson to the little known Morto da Feltro. This 
uncertainty of origin, however, need not disturb our enjoyment 
of the work itself. 

What qualities suggest Giorgione ? Does the man at 
the right recall Giorgione's models ? Are these heads 
more or less suggestive of character study than the three 
unquestioned portraits by Lotto ? 


Are they more or less naturalistic, refined ? Do all 
seem equally alive ? equally solid, well constructed ? 
Are costume, accessories and background treated in the 
same spirit ? 

4230b . . . Bergamo — S. Bartolommeo : Madonna with Saints. 

4335b . . . London — National Gallery: The Brothers della 


4238b . . . Milan — Museo Civico : Portrait of Unknown 


4240b . . , Brescia — Martinengo ColL : Adoration of Shep- 

4247b . . . Milan — Brera: Donna Laura da Pola (?). 

4249b . . . Florence — Pitti : Three Ages of Man (questioned). 

Berenson .... Lorenzo Lotto. 

Berenson. . . . Venetian Painters. 43-44; 1 13-1 16. 

Blanc Ecole Venitienne. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. IL 494-533. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1895. v. 13. May, 361-378; 1896. 

V. 15. January, 35-44. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 359-360. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 568-571. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 29-40 ; 

124-125; 371-372. 
Morelli ..... Italian Painters, v. I. 235-238; 297-301 ; v. II. 

43-55; 256. 

Taine Florence and Venice. 310. 

Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 310-315. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting. v. II. 



Outline for Study. 

Provincial art in Venetia ; causes contributing to 
the growth of Venice as an art center. 

Early work of Pordenone in the smaller cities of 
northern Italy. 

His mastery of fresco ; tendency to the colossal ; 
comparative value of his works in oil. 


Pordenone's real importance as an artist ; his 
ambition, force and facility; rivalry with 

Topics for Further Research, 

The Friuli — its topography and history. 
Painters of the Friuli. 
Questions on Special Picture. 

No. 4475^ — San Lorenzo GiuBtiniam with other Saints. 

On canvas : figures in the foreground are more than life size. 
Painted for the altar of the Renieri family in Madonna delT 
Orto, Venice. The saints in front are John the Baptist, St. Fran- 
cis of Assisi, kneeling, and St. Bernard at his left. 

What is the purpose of this assemblage of Saints ? 
Does every one contribute to the meaning of the composi- 
tion ? Is the ascetic type well-marked ? 

What religious significance in the decoration of the 
apse ? Is perspective correct ? What artistic license in 
connection with the proportions of interior architecture 
was commonly exercised by painters of this period ? 

How has the artist avoided stiffness in grouping ? Is 
the group symmetrical ? balanced? 

Is dramatic tendency properly restrained ? 

Berenson .... Venetian Painters: 60-63; 124-125. 

Blanc Ecole Venitienne. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. II. 170-237; 238- 

Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1867. v. 23. November. 459-469. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 586-588. 

Morelli Italian Masters in German Galleries. 18-24. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 301-305; v. II. 33-38. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 630- 



Xc00on 2. 

a Hi TINTORXSTTO ( Jacopo Robusti). 1518-1594. 
" The thunderbolt of painting." 

Outline for Study, 

Tintoretto's self-education; use of antique models; 
development of scientific methods ; the stan- 
dard he set before himself — "II disegno di 
Michelangelo, il colorito di Tiziano *' ; the 
measure of his success. 

His efforts to obtain recognition ; early commis- 
sion for Sta. Trinita. 

Seriousness and religious temper of his work; 
audacity of his conceptions — their frequent 
lack of dignity. 

Examples in Madonna dell' Orto of Tintoretto's 
various manners ; difficulties in size and shapes 
of canvas; his ability as a narrator. 

His elevated type of womanhood. 

Tintoretto's work in Scuola di San Rocco, extend- 
ing from 1560 to 1578 ; its volume ; its peculiar 
character — its adaptation to the place ; the 
Crucifixion — its dramatic intensity but lack of 
concentration ; Ruskin's estimate of Tintoretto. 

Tintoretto the great scene painter ; impressionistic 
character of his work ; his extraordinary power 
and vehemence ; rapidity of execution ; inclina- 
tion toward the colossal ; resemblance between 
Michelangelo and Tintoretto. 

Paintings for the Ducal Palace before and after 
the conflagration of 1577 ; competition with 
Titian ; the " world-renowned quatrain " in the 
Anti-Collegio ; less inspired work in Sala del Col- 
legio ; hampering effect of State commissions ; 
stiffness of his pageant pieces vs. the " rush " 
of his battlescenes. 

22 • 

The great Council Chamber and its art treasures ; 
II Paradise — its size, confusion in general con- 
ception, beauty of detail. 

Tintoretto's use of oil as a medium ; adaptation of 
color-scheme to his subject ; causes of the 
darkness of many of his canvases. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Ruskin as an art critic. 

The Battle of Lepanto. 

Three centuries of Italian painting — from Cima- 
bue to Tintoret. 

Interactive influence of Venetian and Roman art 
in the sixteenth century. 

Art treasures of Venetian churches. (Taine, 
Florence and Venice, 251.) 

Plague-churches. (Grant Allen, Venice.) 

Tintoretto's great contemporaries in other coun- 
tries — Shakespeare, Cervantes, Montaigne. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4305b — Adam and Eve. 

4.7}^ X 7.2. One of a series of five pictures referring to the 
Creation, which were painted for the church of The Trinity, 

Is this idyllic treatment of the episode new to art ? 
What interpretation of the incident is suggested ? Is the 
expression of Eve's face prophetic ? Would there be any 
justification for making it so ? 

Compare Adam with Michelangelo's Creation of Man, 
3810^. Have these great artists given us a nobler con- 
ception of man than of woman ? Of what artists is that 
true in portraiture ? 

In Tintoretto's Adam is anatomical detail obtrusive ? 
Is it sufficiently indicated to prove accuracy of drawing ? 
Why is this considered one of the most masterly figures 
in the realm of painting ? 


How is the sequel of the Fall indicated ? Is there any 
anachronism in the picture ? 

What other artist has painted foliage with such luxu- 
riance, suggestiveness, variety ? 

No. 4310b — Miracle of the Slave. 

(Miracle of St. Mark.) 

13.8 X 1 7. 1 1. Painted for the hall of the Guild of St. Mark, 
J 548-9. 

A Venetian Christian, captured by Turks, refuses to pay 
homage to their deity but prays to the patron saint of his own 
city instead. By order of the judge torture is about to be ap 
plied when the Saint descends from Heaven, shatters the chains 
by which the prisoner is bound and the instruments of torture. 
The picture is magnificent in color, — golden and warm. A 
preparatory study, now in private possession in Boston, was 
presented by an English lady of rank to Charles Sumner in 
honor of his anti-slavery championship ; and willed by him to 
a colored man from whose heirs it was purchased. 

Where is attention focussed ? How is this accom- 
plished ? Is the excitement of the by-standers gradu- 
ated ? Is there more than one restful spot in the pic- 
ture ? Is this significant ? What use is made of the 
principle of opposition ? 

Is the pantomine intelligible ? Would better defined 
racial types have been an advantage ? 

Has figure drawing offered any difficulties to the 
artist ? What merit in the peculiar background ? 

Why does the illumination emanating from the Saint 
exceed other cases of illumination in Tintoretto's paint- 

No. 4312b ^ Findmg of the body of St. Mark. 

While the exact interpretation is not obvious this picture is 
doubtless an allusion to the story of the disappearance of the 
body of St. Mark after a conflagration in the church that en- 
shrined his remains, and its discovery within the stonework of 
the crypt after a long period of fasting and entreaty on the 
part of the faithful. The Saint is represented here both as 
alive and as dead. 


Interpret the gesture of the standing figure on the left. 
Of the kneeling bishop. Why should two dead bodies 
be represented.? What connection with the event has 
the group in the right foreground ? How are these fig- 
ures characteristic of Tintoretto ? 

How are space and air imparted to the picture ? 

In this case is the picture justified without an under- 
standing of the legend ? What pictures have sufficient 
reason for existence regardless of the illustrative ele- 
ment ? 

No. 4313b — The Marriage at Cana. 
About i6x2i feet. 

Compare 4320^. Do certain details indicate luxury and 
splendor ? To what is due the impression of homeliness 
and lowly life ? (Compare the banquet scenes of Paolo 
Veronese.) As illustrations are these two pictures 
weakened by the inconspicuousness of Jesus ? Why ? 
Which are the newly wedded couple } 

How successful is Tintoretto's arrangement of a 
crowd ? Has it variety of action, connected movement, 
has it naturalness and spontaneity, do the figures seem 
countless ? What incidents of light and shadow make 
this picture interesting? 

No. 4315b —The Annunciation. (Detail.) 
Painted for the lower hall of Sciiola di San Rocco. 

Is this a reverent treatment of the subject ? What are 
the arguments for and against a dramatic conception of 
the event ? Have other artists paralleled this in gran- 
deur, in suggestion of divine power, of dazzling bril- 
liancy ? 

Are the accessories needlessly sordid for a literal rep- 
resentation ? Has Tintoretto been indifferent to beauty 
and tenderness ? 

Where is the spectator's point of view as indicated by 
the tessalated floor ? Is this borne out by the figures ? 


No. 4317b — The Flight into Egypt. 

This picture has been much restored. 

What evidences of hasty treatment ? What effect have 
the large, loose forms of foliage upon the figures — e, g,, 
are they dwarfed or devitalized ? Is anything essential 
omitted in these figures — L ^., is the expression of the 
idea incomplete or unsatisfactory.^ 

What traits are suggested in Madonna ? Do the real- 
istic accompaniments detract from the dignity of the 
event ? or add to its interest ? What is the character 
of Tintoretto's landscape in general ? Cf. Palma Vec- 
chio, Titian. 

No. 4320b -- The Last Supper. ( Detail . ) 

In the upper hall of Scuola di San Rocco. Stearns suggests 
that the painter may have designed to represent the scene as 
one might view it in passing through an adjoining room. 

How did fifteenth century painters of this subject 
arrange the figures ? How has Tintoretto contrived to 
bring all the disciples into view ? Is emotion expressed 
as naturally as in Leonardo's Last Supper ? Is there 
any objection to this violence ? 

Does the Christ here breathe the spirit of divinity? 
of conscious power ? What would have been the effect 
of a quiet, immobile figure in this group? Compare 
other representations of this subject — 3337*, 3150*, 
3005^, 1722^. 

Are the appointments of the room in keeping with the 
group ? How does this compare in appropriateness as a 
church picture with Leonardo's Last Supper, or Ghirl- 
andajo's ? 

No. 4324b — Group from the Cnici£bdon. 

Painted, 1565, for the Refectory of Scuola di San Rocco. This 
vast picture, nearly 30 feet in length (of which Christ on the 
Cross, with the mourning women and disciples huddled at its 
foot, form but a small portion), is marked by variety of incident 
and richness of invention but as a composition lacks central- 


By what artistic devices has this part of the scene been 
made impressive ? Is there a suggestion of a crushing 
blow ? Has the artist fully met the requirements of per- 
fect draughtsmanship ? Has beauty been disregarded ? 
Compare with other paintings of this subject. With 
what measure of success has Tintoretto portrayed pathos 
and tenderness ? Are horror and incredulity over- 
drawn ? 

No. 4327b — Presentation of the Virgin. 

14x15 feet. A comparatively early work. Originally on the 
exterior wall of the organ, now in a side chapel. 

Has the event gained in impressiveness by this unusual 
treatment ? In what respects is it conventional ? Cf . 
Presentation by Titian, Giotto, Taddeo Gaddi. Have all 
these artists treated child-life with genuine sympathy ? 

Where has the artist suggested Oriental or Egyptian 
life and scenes ? Why do vertical lines prevail ? Are 
proportions of the figures normal — e, g.y what would 
be the height of the woman who is half way up the stairs 
if she were measured by rules of perspective ? Apply 
this test to others in the picture. Is the man in the fore- 
ground correctly put together ? Cf. dancing figures in 
Botticelli's " Spring," 1612^. Is there more decorative 
detail than is usual in Tintoretto's work ? 

How is the eye led toward the center of interest ? 
Again compare Titian's Presentation. Which is the 
more glorious conception, the more graceful in drawing ? 
Which more suggestive of refinement and sentiment? 
Which has more vitality ? 

No. 4330^ — The Deposition. 

Figures about life size. 

Is the conception fully worthy of the theme ? Compare 
with other religious pieces by Tintoretto. Is there 
an increase in seriousness, in dramatic intensity ? Does 
it appeal to you by its pathos or by some other noble 
quality ? Is there any discordant note .♦* 


Is it satisfying and full of meaning in arrangement of 
light and shadow ? What hour is represented ? 

No. 4334b — Marriage of St. Catherine. (Detail.) 

The room in the Ducal Palace called Sala del Collegio con- 
tains four wall paintings by Tintoretto, in which various doges 
are introduced to sacred personages ; on the ceiling, two allegori- 
cal figures ; elsewhere, decorative figures in grisaille. 

In Marriage of St. Catherine the doge Francesco Dona is in- 
troduced by St. Mark. 

Is the design dignified or theatrical ? Is there a sense 
of divinity in Madonna ? Why is the Doge indifferent to 
the sacred ceremony? Is his introduction happily 
timed ? What was the practise of other painters ? 

Is this St. Catherine type repeated in other works by 
Tintoretto ? by other painters t Is the figure of high 
artistic interest ? Why ? How and why are St. Cath- 
erine and the Doge differentiated from the others t 

No. 4332b — Bacchus and Ariadne. 

No. 4335b — Forge of Vulcan. 

Two of the '* marvelous quatrain," occupying the angles of 
the small room called Anti-Collegio ; painted 1578. The pictures 
are about 5 feet in height. They are on canvas, like practically 
all other paintings on Venetian walls. 

Which nude figures, male or female, has Tintoretto 
modeled more in detail, invested with more interest ? 

Does it seem a violation of nature's laws that Venus, 
recumbent, should be sustained by the air ? How do we 
know that she is moving — by her drapery only ? Is her 
emotion swift, like that of St. Mark in 4310^? Note the 
waving, rhythmical arrangement of line in 4332^. 

Is the spirit of Greek art in this picture ? 

Is the line composition of 4335** equally suited to the 
motif 1 What did the beauty-loving artist find to attract 

him in this subject ? Are these muscular figures rude, 


destitute of beauty ? Is their action rhythmical — /. e, 
are they so posed that their blows will fall alternately, as 
in actual practise ? 

Why is Vulcan twisted ? Are these figures of undue 
length ? Is that the case with Tintoretto's figures in 
general ? Are his foregrounds ever bare of incident ? 

No. 4340b — Portrait of a Procurator. 

What indications of age in outward appearance ? In 
character suggestion ? Are the evidences, in attitude and 
hands, of robust condition borne out by the face ? 

Is this man highly intellectual, delicately spiritual ? Is 
he a typical Venetian ? Is subtlety generally character- 
istic of Tintoretto's work ? Cf. 4229**. Is this in keeping 
with other paintings by him ? 

General Questions, 

Is there a type of fefnale beauty individual to Tintor- 
etto ? How far is its resemblance to the women of Titian, 
Giorgione, Veronese, fundamental, how far superficial ? 

Is illumination (proceeding from holy persons) ex- 
pressed conventionally or is it in line with his general 
naturalism ? Does it seem incongruous ? 

Is any art principle involved in Venetian indifference 
to chronological accuracy of costume and accessories — 
as in subjects taken from the Bible ? 

Was Tintoretto ever conventional ? commonplare ? 
trivial? What resemblance between him and Michel- 
angelo ? 

Is there anything in his pictures to indicate the begin- 
ning of a decline in art ? 

4305*'' • • Venice — Academy: Adam and Eve. 
4310b. . , Venice — Academy: Miracle of the Slave. 
4312b . , . Milan — Brera : Finding of the body of St. Mark. 


4313^" • • Venice — S. M. della Salute: The Marriage at 

Cana. \ 

43^5^' • • Venice — S. Rocco : The Annunciation. 
4317^) . . . Venice — S. Rocco: The Flight into Egypt. 
4320b . . . Venice — S. Rocco : The Last Supper : detail. 
4325b. . . Venice — S. Rocco: Crucifixion : detail. 
4327b . . . Venice — Madonna, dell' Orto : Presentation of the 

Virgin . 
4330^ • • • Venice — Academy : The Deposition. 
4332b , . . Venice — Ducal Palace : Bacchus and Ariadne. 
4334^'- • • Venice — Ducal Palace: Marriage of St. Catherine. 
4335^ • • • Venice — Ducal Palace : The Forge of Vulcan. 
4340b . . . Florence — Uffizi : Protrait of a Procurator. 

Art Journal — 1857. v. 9; 145-147; 265-270; 297-301. 
Atlantic Monthly — 1891. v. 68; 103. 
Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 51-60. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 369-377. 

Heaton History of Painting. 171-172. 

Knackfuss . . . KUnstler-Monographien. Tintoretto. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 611-616. 

Masters in Art — 1902. April. Part 28. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 660-664. 

Oliphant .... Makers of Venice. Part III. Ch. III. 

Osier Tintoretto. 

Ruskin Michelangelo and Tintoret. 

Ruskin Modern Painters. 

Ruskin Stones of Venice. " Venetian Index." 

St. Paul's Magazine — 1871. v. 8. September, 525-336; v. 9. 

October, 66-74. 

Stearns Four Great Venetians. 

Stearns Life and Genius of Jacopo Robusti. 

Stillman .... Old Italian Painters. 

Symonds .... Fine Arts. 369 ; 375-379. 

Taine Florence and Venice. 250; 254-255; 297-298: 


Vasari Lives, etc. v. III. 382-396. 

Vernon Lee (Violet Paget) — Renaissance Fancies and Studies. 



PARIS BORDONE. 1500-1570. 

Outline for Study, 

Treviso, the birthplace of able artists. 
Bordone's individuality. 

The charm of his color ; his chef cP ocuvre — Fish- 
erman presenting St. Mark's ring to the Doge : 
' his artistic relation to Titian. 
Bordone*s portraits — their distinctive qualities. 

JACOPO BASSANO (Jacopo da Ponte). 1510-1592. 

*' In the midst of a school celebrated for its love of nature, he 
was more of a naturalist than all the others." 

The romantic mountain town of Bassano and its 
School of pakiters. 

Jacopo da Ponte, the first Italian genre-painter ; 
his industry and careful study of animals, land- 
scape and still-life ; deficiency in originality and 

Jacopo the honored associate of great contemp- 
orary painters ; his fame as a colorist. Wide 
distribution of his paintings. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Important paintings in churches of the Trevisan 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4290^ — Fishennan presenting St. Mark's ring to Doge 


Size 12 X 9.8. 

According^ to the legend, one night when a wild storm was 
raging at Venice a fisherman, on landing his boat with great 
difficulty and peril near San Marco, was approached by a man 
who entreated to be taken to San Giorgio Maggiore as his 
errand was most important ; arrived there, they were joined by 
a younger man and the boatman directed to take them to the 
Lido. In vain he protested that they could not reach there 
alive : they assured him that it must be done. He then noticed 


that the tumulturous waves became calm around his boat. At 
the Lido a third passenger appeared and they demanded that 
the boatman should go out to the Castello. On reaching the 
open sea they met a galley filled with demons who made every 
hostile demonstration, but the three men confronted them with 
the sign of the cross and the demons vanished. The boat 
turned about toward the city, landing the passengers respec- 
tively at San Niccol6 di Lido and San Giorgio; when he who 
first entered the boat had reached his own place he said to the 
boatman; *' I have no money, but you should go to the Doge 
and the Procurators for payment.'* *' But how can I expect 
them to believe the story of a poor fisherman, even though 
I see that miracles have been wrought," replied the boatman. 
'*Then show them this ring," said the stranger, *' and tell 
them that I, St. Mark, with St. George aad St. Niccol6 have 
this night saved the city from destruction by storm and war. 
And ask them to look for the ring^ in the treasury of the 
church that enshrines my body." The boatman did as he was 
bidden, and behold! the ring of St. Mark was no longer in the 
place where it was carefully guarded. 

With what sentiments does the poor fisherman ap- 
proach the Doge ? Are these men portraits ? Is the 
type one befitting the rulers of a great commonwealth ? 
Is the architecture impressive in proportions and design ? 
Are the people dwarfed by it ? 

Is the arrangement of lights and darks in this case 
synonymous with lights and shadows ? Is the picture 
quiet or brilliant ? 

Compare with Tintoretto, with Paolo Veronese. How 
does Bordone rank in facility, breadth, in painstaking 
accuracy ? 

No. 4295b — Portrait of a Lady of the Brignole Family. 

The flesh tones of this portrait, fresh and rosy, are exquisite. 
The small and crushed folds of the robe are characteristic of 

Does this resemble 4290^ in modeling of the face, its 
setting against the dark, the brilliant effect, the careful 
finish ? Is the pose graceful ? (Examine other portraits 


of this period to determine if there was a seeking for 
new and unusual attitudes.) 

What is held in the left hand ? Is detail obtrusive ? 
Is attention drawn from the face ? How far has the 
artist made this a study of character ? 

No. 4440b — The Shepberds. 

Does this illustrate a Bible incident or is it merely a 
scene from the artist's daily life ? Your arguments pro 
and con. Define genre. 

What hour of the day is represented ? Is the effect 
of light truthful ? Are shadows heavy and opaque or 
transparent and full of detail ? Is the grouping compact 
or scattered? 

What useful purpose does the landscape fulfil in the 
composition ? 

Do the people suggest a local type of form ? Is the 
picture open to the criticism that the subject was chosen 
for the sake of introducing various animals ? 

No. 4441b — The Repose in Egypt. 

Does this resemble 4440^ in human types, ease of 
attitude, manner of grouping, fidelity to nature in animal 
drawing ? 

Is a different mood or influence perceptible ? 

What functions are performed by the attendants ? Is 
their presence indicated in the Bible story ? Compare 
Solario's treatment of the same subject, 3102^. What is 
indicated by the difference ? 

Which tree is more conventional — this or that in 
4440^ ? Is it done in the modern spirit ? In the true 
pre-Raphaelite spirit? Would the individual leaves or 
clusters appear so large in reality ? What do these trees 
do for the composition ? 

Was ■ it a custom at this time to allow the picture 
frame to cut off portions of figures and other objects ? 


Do these pictures confirm the statement that Jacopo and 
his school habitually arranged to cover feet because un- 
skilled in the drawing of those members ? 


4290b. . . Venice — Academy: Fisherman presenting St. 

Mark's ring to Doge Gradenigo. 
4295b . . . London — National Gallery : Portrait of a Lady of 

the Brignole family. 


4440b , , . Venice — Academy : The Shepherds. 
4441b. , . Milan — Ambrosiana ; The Repose in Egypt. 

Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 64-71; 83-86; 95-97. 

Blanc. ...... Ecole Venitienne. 

Eraser's Magazine — v. 96. 17. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 363-366. 

Heaton History of Painting. 176. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 609-610; 624-626. 

Littell's Living Age — 1877. v. 134. August 25; 491-499. 
Morelli .... Italian Painters, v. I. 389-293; v. II. 351-252. 

Miintz La fin de la Renaissance. 664-665. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 626 


PALM A QIOVANE (Jacopo Palma, the Tounger). 


'^The only excess of which he was guilty was intemperance 
in labor." 

Interest of Guidobaldo of Urbino in the youth- 
ful Palma : studies in Rome. 

His final establishment in Venice ; the great 
painters of that day ; difficulties and discour- 
agements of a young artist ; Pal ma's appoint- 
ment to finish work left incomplete at Titian's 


Palma's growing artistic and social success ; his 
studious life ; facility in design ; foreign patrons. 

Numerous commissions by Venetian religious soci- 
eties ; paintin'gs in the Ducal Palace. 

Topic for Further Research, 

The League of Cambray. (Horatio Brown, 
Venice, 335-341. Wiel, Venice.) 

Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 44511^ — League of Cambray. 

An allegorical picture, painted for the Sala del Senato. 

Read the story of the League. What is endangered by 
the attack of the mounted warrior ? (See emblems borne 
by the symbolical figures.) Why does she come up out 
of the sea ? Why the Pope's attitude toward the de- 
fender ? Is this in accordance with history ? On whose 
head will rest the crown of bay ? What is the signifi- 
cance of the objects held in the other hand of the angels? 
Does the landscape picture some locality connected with 
the League '^. 

Compare the landscape with those by Pajma Vecchio 
and Jacopo Bassano. Which is painted with most sym- 
pathy with nature ? Is it possible to paint landscape 
accessories carefully and well without diminishing the 
importance of figures ? 


Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 71-72. 

Blanc Ecole Venitienne. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 683. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 194. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. II. 251. 


Xcaeon 3. 

FRANCESCO TORBIDO (U Moro). 1486-1536? 
Outline for Study. 

Torbido a link between early and late school of 
Verona ; pupil of Liberale : imitator of Giorgi- 

His excellent work in portraiture, 

Altarpieces ; latest works — frescos in Cathedral 
of Verona.; influence of Giulio Romano. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Men of letters in Verona. (Wiel, Verona, Chap. 6.) 

Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 4050^ — Toung Man With a Rose. 

Examine portraits by Giorgione and by Moroni. To 
which is this most nearly allied in sentiment ? in manner 
of painting ? Was the stone parapet a favorite accessory 
of either ? Is the face empty of meaning ? Is it pro- 
foundly thoughtful ? poetic ? What interpretation is sug- 
gested ? Cf. Bellini's double portrait, 2163^. What 
resemblances in costume, drawing, texture ? Where in 
the history of painting does this portrait belong ? 

Blanc Ecoles Lombardes. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. I. 509-512. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. I. 272-273. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 51-54. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. II. 66-78. 

Wiel Verona. 

PAUL VERONESE (Paolo CaUarl). 1528-1588 

*' Each of his paintings is a feast for the eyes." 


Outline for Study, 

Verona, " the ciiy of good story tellers " — our 
artist's ability in that direction. 

Paul Veronese the contemporary and friend of 
Tintoretto ; a representative of other tendencies 
in Venetian painting ; his interest in the exter- 
nals of existence. 

The Caliari, a family of artist-craftsmen ; Paul's 
youthful essays in sculpture ; irresistible attrac- 
tion of color ; sculpture motifs in his paintings. 

Work in provincial towns both before and after 
his removal to Venice ; early development of 
characteristic treatment of mythological themes ; 
mastery of the technique of fresco ; contempo- 
rary admiration ; the Villa Maser. 

Paul in Venice ; decoration of the church of San 
Sebastiano, 1555-1565 : his handling of the 
problem of ceiling painting compared with that 
of Michelangelo and Correggio. 

Venice at the height of its prosperity and the 
opportunity afforded Paul Veronese. 

Banquet scenes, Paul's typical work ; their con- 
temporary character ; colossal size of his can- 
vases ; his ability as a space-composer : luminous 

Paul before the Council of the Inquisition ; his 
theory of art ; his lack of literary education and 
his anachronisms. 

Visit to Rome, 1565 ; its effect on his Style. 

Re-decoration of the Ducal Palace, 1577-15 88 ; 
Paul Veronese a fitting exponent of Venetian 
magnificence ; the worldly beauty of his female 
types ; his glory of color. 

The temperament of Paul Veronese ; his peren- 
nial freshness, fulness of health and strength ; 
unwearied activity ; union of poetic fancy with 

37 • 

naturalistic method ; the uniform excellence of 
his work in his chosen field. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Shakespeare^s stories of Verona. 

The problems of ceiling decoration. 

Artistic interest of Verona. (Taine, Florence and 

Venice. 328-341.) 
The Palace of the Doges. (Grant Allen, Venice ; 

Ruskin, Stones of Venice.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4355b — St. Gregory and St. Jerome. 

Wing of triptych, the central panel of which represents the 
Adoration of the Magi. 

How has the artist sought to vary conventional treat- 
ment and increase the artistic interest ? Are the vine 
and dove symbolic ? Is there gain or loss in represent- 
ing the heavenly choir and the clouds that sustain them 
as such solid objects ? How did Raphael treat that 
motif? Cf. 3435^. Are they attractive in sentiment and 
attitude ? Are they spiritually elevated ? 

No. 4358^ — Coronation of Esther by Ahasuems. 

Painted in oil on canvas between 1555 and 1560; figures over 
life size. The central panel of a series of ceiling pictures from 
the story of Esther. This commission, one of the first received 
bjhim in Venice, Paul owed to his fellow-countryman, Tor- 
lioni, Prior of the Cloister. 

Was the life of Esther often treated by Renaissance 
painters? 'What special opportunities did it offer to 
Paul ? Was he learned in ancient customs and ceremo- 
nies ? Has he produced here a picture of as brilliant 
contrasts as his most characteristic paintings ? 

What reason for the peculiar drawing? Would actual 
figures look thus if they were seen directly over one's 
head, or would they have to be viewed at a more or less 
acute angle ? How did Melozzo, Correggio, Michel- 


angelo meet this problem ? Is there a feeling of move- 
ment in the figures, in their draperies, in the skin of the 

No. 4360^ — The Marriage at Cana. 

20x30 feet. Painted 1562-63 for the refectory of the monas- 
tery of San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice ; the firstof Paul's great 
banquet scenes. Some idea of its size may be gained from the 
fact that it contains one hundred full length figures with at 
least fifty more heads or half-lengths. It was carried to Paris 
by Napoleon and was retained at the time of the treaty, a 
painting by the French artist Lebrun, **The Feast in the Phar- 
isee's House," being sent in exchange. 

The group of musicians in the foreground is said to include 
portraits of Titian with bass-viol, Tintoretto playing the viola, 
Veronese with flute. The man with viola, however, resembles 
so-called portraits of Paul and is a type often seen in his 

Are Jesus and the bride and groom placed in promi- 
nent positions ? Should they be so or should the mir- 
acle itself be the first to attract attention ? How is the 
picture naturalistic in arrangement ? in incident ? 

Is the scene pervaded by a spirit of joyousness? Is 
the architecture elaborated as carefully as the figures ? 
Is it too obtrusive for a background ? Did the attitudes 
of the figures present any more difficulty to the artist 
than to a photographer? What resemblance between 
the man playing the viola and Michelangelo's Moses ? 

No. 4364b — Feast at the House of Levi. 

No. 4365b —Detail of 4364b . 

Painted, 1572, for the church of San Giovanni e Paolo, Ven- 
ice. This was the picture that caused the artist to be summoned 
before the Inquisition to answer to the charges of irreverence 
and heresy. He convinced the judges of the innocency of his 
intentions and painted out one offending figure but left un- 
changed other unscriptural accessories. The name of the pic- 
ture was also changed from " Feast in the house of Simon " to 
that which it now bears. 4365b , said to be the artist's portrait, 
is one of the most notable figures in art. 


In what kind of structure does this scene occur ? Is 
it an injury to the composition to divide it into three 
parts? Does the mass of figures balance the heavy 
architectural forms ? 

How is monotony overcome ? Is the distance as full 
of charm as 4360** ? How is attention drawn to Jesus ? 

Is the figure in 4365** treated in the spirit of por- 
trait art ? Does it keep its place in the general composi- 
tion ? What is the man doing whose head is seen between 
the columns ? In what subjects would this piece of realism 
be permissible ? Is it to be supposed that the clown and 
paroquet would be included in a banquet given for a 
noted religious teacher? How may the presence of 
these dubious features be explained ? 

No. 4369 b — Head of Padre Servito Orsuio. 

Detail from another of the great banquet scenes, the Feast 
of St. Gregory the Great, painted in fresco, 1572, for the Pil- 
grimage church of Madonna del Monte on Monte Berico in the 
outskirts of Vicenza. A long arcaded passage leads from the 
town up the hill for the protection of the faithful in incle- 
ment weather, which was the scene of a sharp conflict between 
Italian and Austrian troops in 1848 : this picture suffered seri- 
ously at that time but has been restored and is still in position. 

Examine all of Paul's pictures — are such fine heads 
numerous ? Is it to be expected of an artist of his tem- 
perament that he should copy faithfully the living model 
and add nothing from the, imagination ? Why ? 

Is this head modeled with all the detail of a portrait ? 
Is it solid ? Does it project far from the background ? 
Would it look flat and unobtrusive in a large composi- 
tion ? What is the case with 4365^? In 4369^ is any- 
thing more needed to express character ? 

No. 43701) — Adoration of Shepherds. 

The central portion of an altarpiece, 13 x 8 feet, painted by 
order of Grimani, Procurator of San Marco. St. Jerome ap- 
pears at the extreme left. 


Does this picture betray sympathy with lowly life ? 
Have the men the air of grandees in disguise ? How is 
Mary's poverty indicated ? Is the cow anjrthing more 
than a simple bovine creature ? Cf. 4385^ , 

What is the source of illumination ? Cf. Correggio's 
Holy Night, 3734^^ Is the picture sincere and realistic 
in its sentiment and in its representation of the ma- 
terial ? Does it arouse a devotional feeling? Would 
it be a more acceptable altarpiece than 4355^? Why? 

No. 4372^ — St. Helena dreaming of the Cross. 

An allusion to a vision of the Empress Helena, mother of the 
Emperor Constantine. The conversion and devotion to Chris- 
tianity of these royal persons enabled the faith to obtain a firm 
foothold in the Roman state. The Empress built important 
churches in the eastern Roman dominions and in an excavation 
for one on Calvarv the true cross was discovered. 

By which are you most impressed — the spiritual or 
material quality ? What character is revealed in the 
Saint ? What interpretation would be suggested if the 
Christian Symbol were omitted ? What gives this 
figure charm and distinction ? Is this painted with a 
breadth, facility, knowledge of form, decorative feeling, 
equal to any of this artist's pictures ? 

No. 4373>^ — Finding of Moses. 

This picture, beautiful in color and drawing, and full of dis- 
tinction is discussed in terms of high praise, as an authentic 
work, by one of Paul Veronese's recent biographers ; but Kugler 
and the Prado official catalogue call it a copy, by Paul's son, 

Cf. 4385^. What is to be said in favor of translating 
a pre-Christian legend into the terms of sixteenth century 
Court life ? Does it make the incident commonplace ? 
What gives this picture enduring interest ? 

Is the introduction of Nubians significant of the cus- 
toms of the artist's time or is it done to give an impres- 
sion pf historical veracity ? 


Among- Paul's paintings how does this rank ? Why ? 

No. 4375b — St. Anthony Abbott enthroned with St. Cor- 
nelius and St. Cypiian. 

Why are these three saints associated? Does the 
splendor of robes and environment detract from the 
saintly nobility of the types ? Was Paul Veronese usually 
governed by a fine sense of propriety in the selection of 
models ? 

Where else is found the motif of a negro page support- 
ing a book like a lectern ? Is this attitude well chosen, 
possible to maintain ? 

Judging from this picture how should Paul rank as a 
painter of still life ? As an anatomist ? Is the bony 
structure of the heads well indicated } 

No. 4381^ — Angel of Annnnciation (detail). 

The scene of the Annunciation is a spacious marble hall, the 
Virgin kneeling at the extreme right, the angel appearing at the 
left. Entire picture, 15 x 17^ feet. 

Cf 4315^. Which is more in accordance with our 
idea of the manner of the angePs appearance ? With 
what feeling would Mary become conscious of this softly 
descending angel ? Does the flutter of the garments sug- 
gest violent movement } Is the sense of motion vivid ? 
In what other picture by Paul is this model found ? Is 

the feminine type generally used for angels ? 


No. 4383^ — Marriage of St. Catherine. 

This admirably preserved canvas was painted in 1577 for the 
high altar of the church where it still remains. 

Is this a characteristic example of Paul's work in the 
ensemble I Is it an effective composition in masses of 
light and dark? Is the general effect clear and simple 
or a confusion of small objects and details ? Might a 
sufficient reason exist for designing such confusion ? 

Do the^raped columns commend themselves to your 


reason ? Is there anything in festival customs that 
might suggest this motif 1 

Compare the treatment of this subject by Tintoretto and 
Correggio. Of what are the differences significant ? Is 
either distinguished by profound religious feeling ? Is it 
possible to express in a picture the mystical character 
of this union ? 

No. 4385b — Rape of Europa. 

8^ X lo feet. Tintoretto's Forge of Vulcan and Bacchus with 
Ariadne are in the same small ante-chamber in the Ducal Palace. 

Jupiter, attracted bj the charms of the lovely Europa who 
with her companions wandered in the flowery mead, assumed 
the form of a bull, feeding among the cattle. His beauty and 
gentleness won the confidence of the maidens and Europa seated 
herself upon his back, as he knelt before her. Her carried her 
to the sea, then, suddenly plunging into the waves, bore her to 
the island of Crete. 

What is the effect on one's mind of a frankly modern 
treatment of a Greek myth ? Is the story brought nearer 
to our comprehension ? Is there a loss of tragic interest? 
Has the maiden in Greek aft ever been represented as 
beautiful and with as much sentiment as Paul Veronese's 
Europa ? 

Compare Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream. 
How do the drama and the painting illustrate and supple- 
ment each other ? 

Is this an example of careful composition? Was that 
a matter in which Venetian artists of this period were 
greatly interested ? What did they offer as compensa- 
tion ? What similarity between Paul and Tintoret in 
treatment of foliage ? Cf. also 4373^ . 

No. 4388b — Industry. 

The ceiling of the Sala del CoUegio, formerly the Hall for 
the reception of foreign ambassadors, is decorated entirely with 
paintings by Paul Veronese set in a richly carved and gilded 
design, portions of which appear in our print. The central panel 
over the throne represents Venice enthroned; below is a panel 


of Neptune and Mars ; while on the sides are nine panels of the 
Virtues, Industry being one. 

Is this conceived as seen from below ? Is it a highly 
vitalized personality ? Is its movement vigorous? elastic ? 
light ? Is the drapery superabundant or is it all needed 
to give proper support to the figure? Is there an effect- 
ive balance of light and dark ? 

Would the symbolism be understood without the name? 
Had Paul a lofty imagination or was he contented to 
paint what he saw every day ? 

General Questions, 

Is Paul Veronese's interest in the representation of 
rich fabrics a matter for regret ? Does what he accom- 
plished point to nobler possibilities ? Had he hidden with- 
in him the dramatic fervor of Tintoret, the profound 
thoughtfulness of Michelangelo, the religious sentiment 
of the earlier Lombard schools, the poetry of certain 
fifteenth century Florentines ? What are the Venetian 
characteristics ? 

How does he compare with Tintoret in ability to con- 
vey the impression of a crowd with an economy of figures ? 
Are his crowds skilfully massed and subordinated ? Was 
he ever daunted by any problem of draughtsmanship ? 
What qualities are demanded of the successful painter of 
pageant pieces ? 

In what respect is art the richer for Paul Veronese's 
contribution ? 


4355^* • • Milan — Brera: Compartment of Triptych: St. 

Gregory and St. Jerome. 
. Venice — S. Sebastiano : Coronation of Esther. 
. Paris — Louvre: The Marriage at Cana. 
. Venice — Academy : Feast at the house of Levi. 

Detail of 4364b . 
. Vicenza — Monte Berico : Head of Padre Servito 
Grano : detail of Feast of St. Gregory the Great. 


4358b . 
4360b . 

4364^ . 
4365^ . 
4369*^ • 

4370** • . . Venice — S- Giuseppe di Castello : Adoration of 

4372b . . . London — National Gallery: St. Helena dreaming of 

the Cross. 
4373^ • • • Madrid — Prado : Finding of Moses. 
4375*'' • • Milan — Brera : St. Anthony Abbot enthroned with 

St. Cornelius and St. Cyprian. 
4381b. , . Venice — Academy: Angel of the Annunciation. 
43^3^- • • Venice — S. Caterina : Marriage of St. Catherine. 
4385^. . . Venice — Ducal Palace, Anti-CoUegio : Rape of 

4388b , . . Venice — Ducal Palace, Sala del Collegio : Industry. 

Allen Venice. 

Art Journal — 1858. v. 10. 1-4; 33-36. 

Berenson . . . Venetian Painters. 1 18-120. 

Burckhardt . . Der Cicerone. Part III. 774-791 • 

Dohme .... Kunst und Kiinstler. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1867. v. 20. October. 378-382 ; 

1878. V. 16. May. 385 ; v. 17. August. 126- 
142; 1881. V. 5. January, 5-19. 

Gilbert .... Landscape in Art. 367-369. 

Heaton .... History of Painting. 173-176. 

Knackfuss . . KUnstler-Monographien : Veronese. 

Kugler .... Italian Schools, v. II. 617-623. 

Miintz .... La fin de la Renaissance. 640-660. 

Ruskin .... Modern Painters. 

Ruskin . . . . Stones of Venice : *' Venetian Index." 

Stearns . . . Four Great Venetians. 304-365. 

Symonds . . Fine Arts. 370; 372-375. 

Taine .... Florence and Venice. 328-341. 

Vasari .... Lives, etc. v. III. 340-352. 

Yriarte .... La vie d'un Patricien de Venise. 

Yriarte .... Paul Veronese. 


Outline for Study, 

The Bonifazi — an artist family of Verona. 
Dimness and confusion in the history of these 


painters ; difficulty of reconciling tradition with 
probability in the attribution of their works. 

Artistic affinities of one of the Bonifazi with 
Palma Vecchio ; his color quality ; character of 
landscape backgrounds ; Veronese traits. 

The paintings in Italian galleries and churches, 
differing in style and excellence, that bear the 
name of Bonifazio. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Environment of the Veronese artist. (Ruskin, 
Verona and its Rivers.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4250b — Parable of the Rich Man. 
No. 4251b — Detail of 4250b . 

Height 6.7. 

Observe the expression of the faces, the absence of in- 
dication of feasting and prodigality. Does this seem to 
be other than a simple domestic gathering of a family 
of condition ? Do the musicians and Lazarus prove that 
the artist was able to illustrate his subject intelligently ? 

What effect has the music upon the maiden at the end 
of the table ? Interpret the interchange of look and 
speech between the two older people and the caress given 
to the maiden. Is the isolation of Lazarus emphasized 
by placing him in a separate compartment of the picture.^ 

Is the lighting consistent ? Would the picture be better 
without the detached incidents of the background ? What 
part is played in the interpretation by the garden scene 
and distant landscape ? Are there indications of the in- 
fluence of Palma Vecchio ? 

No. 4255b — The Judgment of Solomon. 

About 5.9 in height. Painted 1533. 
To which mother is the sympathy of the spectators 
given ? Are the attitudes natural or theatrical ? Is the 


complex character of a crowd ably illustrated ? Has the 
general treatment the freedom and spontaneity of work 
by Veronese or Tintoretto ? Or of 4250^ ? How is 
interest in landscape proven by this and 4250^? 

Is the scene intelligently planned ? Has the design 
been made subservient to the requirements of a patron ? 

No. 4260b — Holy Family. 

In an incident of this character what would be a proper 
geographical location ? How do the ease and grace of 
this group compare with 4250^, 4255^? Do these three 
pictures suggest the same hand> the same mind ? 

Is the action of 4260^ natural to a Santa Conversa- 
zione ? Does the picture lose by lack of a common in- 
terest ? Has the artist combined persons, who are far 
apart mentally, into an agreeable and harmonious whole ? 

Why should this moft/ {the Santa Conversazione) have 
suggested itself to late Renaissance painters ? What 
peculiar technical quality makes this picture pleasing ? 

No. 4275b —St. Bernard and St. Sebastian. 

Figures nearly life size. In 1562 Bonifazio painted for several 
churches in Venice groups of Saints in twos or threes. 

St. Bernard of Clairvaux was a noted theologian and disput- 
ant. Satan, chained at his feet, symbolizes heresy. 

How does this St. Sebastian compare with that of 
Sodoma, of Perugino and others, in expression of senti- 
ment and in beauty of person ? In a large picture where 
a nude figure plays so prominent a part is this style of 
modeling satisfactory ? Cf. 401 1^ , 32 i8^ . 

What resemblance between St. Bernard and the por- 
trait in 4255'' ? Is great art belittled by the introduc- 
tion of family shields that do not form an integral part of 
the design ? by the realistic pattern painting of the 
border of an ecclesiastical robe? How much or little 
value has a picture like 4275^ and why ? 

In the four pictures by the Bonifazi, which represent 


the freest, the most original art ? What signs are therie 
of independent thought? Of loving care for artistic 
perfection ? 


4250b. . . Venice — Academy: Parable of the Rich Man. 

4251b . . . Lazarus : detail of 4250b . 

4255b, . . Venice — Academy: The Judgment of Solomon. 


4260b . . . Paris — Louvre : Holy Family. 


4275b . . . Venice — Academy : St. Bernard and St. Sebastian. 


Note : Morelli's Italian Masters in German Galleries ; or his 
Italian Painters, v. II, is indispensable to the study of the 

Blanc Ecoles Venitiennes. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 571-575. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 184-194. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 241-242 ; 292-293 : v. II. 


Ruslcin Verona and its Rivers. 

Taine Florence and Venice. 309. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 626- 



Xeeson 4. 



Outline for Study, 

Early painters of Brescia — the teaching of Vi- 
cenzo Foppa ; mingling of Lombard and Vene- 
tian characteristics. 

Romanino's birth and education ; advanced study 
in Venice; years spent in Padua. 

His great altarpieces — in Brescia, in London and 

The brilliancy of Romanino's color ; his hasty and 
careless execution. 

Fellow-students and scholars of Romanino. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4285b — Madonna enthroned ^gvith Saints. 

On wood; figures over life size. Painted, 1513, for the 
Cloister of Santa Giustina, Padua, to fill an elaborate frame 
already made ; the architecture of the picture carries on the 
architectural design of the frame. Gold has been freely used in 
dress and architectural painting. Saints Benedict and Justina 
are on the left ; Monica and Prosdocino on the right. "The 
color effect is of amber and gold." 

Cf. Lotto's Madonna Enthroned, 4230^, painted the 
same year; also Montagna's, 2095^; Alvise Vivarini's, 
2219^ . How is this general resemblance to be explained ? 
What does the architecture add ? Compare again with 
Lotto. In which picture is the more dramatic action ? 
Are the saints apathetic ? Are they strong, dignified, 
beautiful ? Cf. 2149^, by Bellini; 4006^, by Giorgione. 
What artistic excellencies are brought out by this com- 
parison ? What artistic advantages or disadvantages 
result from the architecture, the relative size of the fig- 
ures, the attitudes, treatment of light and shade ? 


Has Romanino been greatly influenced by Venetian 
art ? What marked differences are there ? 

Is the individuality of the Saints and Madonna well 
expressed ? How thoroughly did the artist understand 
the human form ? Are draperies expressive of the form 
they cover ? Of texture ? 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle — North Italy, v. II. 367-395. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 575-577; 585-586. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 403-407. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 383-284. 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 634. 

MORETTO (AleBsandro Bonvicino). 1498-1555. 

Moretto a comparatively recent discovery in 
Italian Art ; to be studied only in Brescia : art 
treasures in seldom- visited Italian towns. 

Titian^s altarpiece at SS. Nazaro e Celso a factor 
in his training ; Lombard feeling in his work ; 
his development of a highly individual style. 

Moretto's temperament — his tenderness, grav- 
ity, elevation of sentiment; taste for rich dra- 
peries and luxurious accessories. 

Moretto a fine technician ; his color-scheme ; sil- 
very tone of his later paintings ; friendly ri- 
valry with Romanino. 

His altarpieces — dominated by religious fervor ; 
beauty and lofty dignity of his female types. 

Thoughtfuln6ss of his portrait work. 

Topics for Further Research. 

Archaeological treasures of Brescia. 

Memorials of a Lombard House — the Martinengo 
family. (Countess Martinengo Cesaresco, Lom- 
bard Studies.) 


Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4400^ — Madonna in Glory. 

On wood : figures life size. A most beautifully colored work. 
Painted for the church of Sta. Eufemia. The Saints are Bene- 
dict, Paterius, Agnes and Euphemia. 

Is there a sense of insecurity in Madonna's position ? 
Has the artist attempted to give the feeling of uplift or 
soaring movement ? What excellencies of composition ? 
What prevents an impression of crowding ? Cf . 4285^ . 

Have the saints any points in common with Romanino's 
types ? Do St. Euphemia and St. Agnes resemble the 
women of Venetian painting ? Explain their beauty. 

How does this compare with Venetian work in reli- 
gious sentiment ? 

No. 4405b _ St. Justina. 

Figures over life size. One of the choicest paintings in the 
important Imperial Gallery, and ascribed to Pordenone before 
Moretto's work was known. 

St. Justina is the patron saint of Padua where she is said to 
have been martyred about 304 A. D. Her emblem, the Unicorn, 
is the symbol of chastity. The nobleman kneeling beside her 
is, according to Blanc, Duke Ercole Ferrara. The picture was 
taken to Vienna from the Hofburg in Innsbruck, 1622. 

What unusual decorative features are introduced ? 
Does the landscape recall any other with which you 
are acquainted in Italian painting ? Is it well chosen ? 

What is the character of the Saint? Compare with 
work by Lombard painters — with Venetian types. Are 
there physical traits in common ? Are there spiritual 
affiliations ? Is St. Justina merely a fine physical type ? 
Is she worldly ? Cf . Palma's St. Barbara. 

What does the kneeling donor add to the picture ? In- 
terpret the intensely personal regard of the Saint. 

Are the glitter of silk and the heavy richness of bro- 
cade the considerations for which this picture was painted? 


No. 4406^ — St. Niccolo da Bari presenting Children to the 


No. 4407b —Detail of 4406b . 

Figures life size. Painted, 1539, for Galeazzo Rovelle, as a 
votive altarpiece in S. M. de' Miracoli, Brescia. 

Is there any especial fitness in representing St. Nich- 
olas in this connection ? What significance is attached 
to the symbols borne by the children ? Why does one 
of them look out of the picture ? Is it disturbing ? 
Would it make any difference if it were St. Nicholas 
looking out at us ? 

What is unusual in the arrangement and setting of 
the picture ? Why is Madonna not in the niche } What 
pictures that we have studied have shown similar affec- 
tion on the part of the Child ? Does it weaken the re- 
ligious concept ? 

Is this a poetic presentation of the theme ? For what 
does it claim admiration ? What traits has it in common 
with Moretto's other paintings.'* 

No. 4410b — The Supper at Emmaus. 

Painted for a hospital. The deep warm tone is in contrast to 
Moretto's most characteristic work. 

How is the hat of Christ to be explained ? Do other 
things in the dress harmonize with it ? Has it an artis- 
tic value ? 

Does realistic rendering always degrade the sentiment 
of a religious theme ? Are these ideal or idealized 
types ? What is the character of these men ? In what 
other picture by Moretto is seen the peculiarly earnest, 
fixed regard ? Is it seen in pictures by other painters ? 
Is this power of facial expression desirable in an illustra- 
tion ? Did Giotto tell his stories in this way ? W^hich is 
most easily understood ? 

Do the persons at either end of the composition .differ 
in an essential way from the others ? Are they neces- 


sary ? Do they resemble each other ? Why is the maid 
a discordant element ? 

Is there anything peculiar in the artist's physical point 
of view? What lack of proportion is evident ? What 
explanation ? 

No. 4415^ — The AnnunciatioiL 

An early work. Similar figures are found in a predella in 
the Sacristy of SS. Nazaro e Celso, Brescia. 

Is this subject treated more often by early or late 
painters ? Is there any reason for this ? 

How does this illustrate Moretto's literal temper ? 
Has he suggested the supernatural ? Cf. Tintoretto's 
Annunciation, 4315^. Which is the more convincing? 
the more artistic ? Why ? 

Is there any resemblance to typical Madonnas by 
Titian ? 

No. 44201) — Count Sciarra Martinengo CeBaresco. 

This Brescian nobleman was a member of an old and distin- 
guished family. Having, while young, avenged his father's 
assassination, he was, in accordance with the law of the land, 
banished from Venetian territory ; he lived chiefly at the Court 
of France, admired for his character and fighting gallantly 
in the king's wars. He fell in the strife with the Huguenots. 

Moretto painted portraits of other members of this noble 

Has this man an attractive personality ? Is the paint- 
ing of unusual psychological interest? Cf. 4431^, 
4247^, 4168^, 4016^. 

Is this portrait sternly realistic ? Are there evidences 
of idealization ? Is there the same attention to the rep- 
resentation of fabrics — of fur, as in Titian's work ? 
Was Moretto most interested in the development of 
character or in the artistic ensemble ? 

General Questions, 

Have Moretto's pictures genuine artistic feeling ? Are 
they decorative in line and composition ? Do they ap- 


peal to us on the spiritual, intellectual or sensuous side ? 
What is his rank as a craftsman ? 

Are his characters intellectually strong? Are they 
mystics ? Was he possessed of imagination ? 

4400b . . . Brescia — Martinengo Coll. : Madonna in Glory. 

4405b. . . Vienna — Imperial Gallery : St. Justina. 

4406b . . . Brescia — Martinengo Coll. : St. Niccol6 da Bar! 
presenting Children to the Virgin. 

4407b . . . Detail of 4406b , 

4410b . . . Brescia — Martinengo Coll. : The Supper at Emmaus. 

4415b. . . Brescia — Martinengo Coll. : The Annunciation. 

4420b . . . London — National Gallery : Count Sciarra Martin- 
engo Cesaresco. 

Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 60-62. 

Blanc Ecole Venitienne. 

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. North Italy, v. II. 396-417. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 577-581. 

Martinengo-Cesaresco. Lombard Studies. 69-130. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 47-50; 169-171 ; 399-403. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 285-286; v. II. 226- 

Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 634- 



*' Moroni combines a rich and heavy impasto with a precise 
and delicate outline." 

Moretto's most able pupil: early confusion of 
their works. 

Moroni's removal to Bergamo : patronage of ec- 
clesiastical establishments of that neighborhood; 
his interest as a painter of sacred history. 

Moroni's portraits his true claim to fame ; his in- 
tellectual characterization of men ; his ability 
to render a commonplace subject interesting. 

Solidity and brilliancy of his painting, Titian's 
praise of Moroni. 


Topic for Further Research, 

The hill town of Bergamo. (Symonds, Sketches, 

V. I.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

4430b _ The TaUor. 

4431b — Portredt of a Lawyer. 

4432b — Portrait of Antonio Navagero. 

What characteristics common to all of these ? If they 
were not portraits would you say that all were inspired 
by the same model ? 

Are rank, position, wealth, distinguishing features ? Is 
the artistic subordinated to the personal interest? Or 
vice versa ? Has the artist come into sympathy with his 
subject ? How is this shown ? 

Compare with the double portrait by Bellini, 2136^ ; 
with portraits by Giorgione, Titian, Lotto. With which 
have Moroni's portraits most in common ? 

Why may a portrait subject look directly out of the 
picture and a saint not ? What effect is produced here ? 

Are there more portraits in early or later art ? Why ? 
Is it as high a form of art as religious compositions, as 
phantasie ? 


4430b . . . London — National Gallery : The Tailor. 

4431b. . . London — National Gallery : Portrait of a Lawyer. 

4432b . . . Milan — Brera; Portrait of Antonio Navagero. 


Blanc Ecole V^nnitiene. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 581-582. 

Morelli Italian Masters. 27 ; 47-50. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I. 305-306; v. II. 62-66. 

Symonds .... Sketches and Studies, v. I. 
Woltmann and Woermann. History of Painting, v. II. 635- 


Important "Wotice. 

Beginning with the year 1904-5 the entire scheme of publica- 
tion of aids to art study will be modified and its scope will be 
greatly enlarged. The following will be the most important 
changes : 

New serieB of reproductions will be added, not annually, as 
heretofore, but as rapidly as convenience may permit. Each 
series will consist of 500 systematically arranged and carefully 
verified subjects amply illustrating the field chosen. The next 
series to be issued is the Greek and Greco-Roman art described 
elsewhere, to be followed soon by the art of Germany and the 

Old series will be amplified. Our first series covering the 
early Italian art will receive about 150 additions, its few^ Greek 
subjects, published as a necessity for early comparison, being 
transferred to our new series. About 50 subjects will be added 
to the series on late Italian art, thus raising each of these series 
to the new limit of 500. This will enable us to furnish all the 
subjects for which there has been an expressed demand, includ- 
ing a number of the highest importance. 

Bound volumes or Albums (we are not quite decided which) 
will be furnished at slight additional cost for the new series as 
fast as issued, and ultimately for the old series also. 

Handbooks for the guidance of art students will take the 
place of the Outlines hitherto issued. Their aim will be similar 
to that of the Outlines but important changes of method will 
be made embodying the results of experience. They will con- 
tain full and critical bibliographies, topics for special research 
and a critical note on each subject published, giving the known 
facts and the significant theories regarding it and some apprecia- 
tion of its artistic worth with suggestions for comparison in the 
form of questions or otherwise. The handbook will be issued 
quarterly in parts for convenience, but will ultimately be bound 
in one volume. 

Editorship will be raised to the highest level by the coopera- 
tion ol distinguished authorities in these several departments of 
art study. The editorship of our next series will be noticed in 
the special announcement published herewith. 


Number Sixteen. 

^be Zenltb of IDenetian Hrt 


While Giorgione is probably entitled to the place of 
highest honor in Venetian art, it is not in his work that 
that art culminates. His is the originality, the penetra- 
tion and the clear vision which determined the character 
of that art throughout its golden period, but his discov- 
eries were too far reaching to be fully developed in the 
brief lifetime which was allotted to him by an untoward 
fate. Art is still unconsoled for the untimely death of 
Correggio at forty and Raphael at thirty-seven, though 
both had sakl their uttermost thought and werjg in full 
decadence when they died. But Giorgione died at thirty- 
four in the unimpaired vigor of a boundless inspiration 
and with a self-imposed task in hand which would have 
filled a century of tireless industry. He was the Ma- 
saccio of Venice. 

But Giorgione was more fortunate than Masaccio in 
leaving his task to competent hands. While Florentine 
art trudged on for a century, more dazed than guided by 
the meteor flash of Masaccio's genius, the development 
of Venetian art is scarce hindered for a decade by the 
loss of its greatest representative. Whatever surprises 
the resourceful Giorgione may have had in store for u^, 
the message actually delivered was fully comprehended, 
the lesson taught was fully learned by the great Titian 
to whose marvellous discipline and tireless industry was 
allotted the century of existence needed to perfect Giorgi- 
one's art. 

The first thing to be said, and one of the best things 
that can be said about Titian, is that he thoroughly un- 
derstood and appreciated Giorgione. This brief state- 
ment which goes far toward being a characterization of 
Titian, needs no extensive amplification. It recalls at 

once the glory of shadow and color, the charm and the 
mystery of out-of-doors, the haunting mysticism with 
which he half reveals and half conceals the face of both 
nature and man. Of all this Titian seems to have taken 
immediate cognizance. By sheer intellectual power, 
Titian seems to have been able to master Giorgione as 
one masters a problem in calculus and that, too, without 
having any appreciable affinity for the subtle mysticism 
of his deeply poetical nature. Giorgione came to Titian 
as Isaiah comes to a penetrating impartial critic, not at 
all as Isaiah came to the dreaming, deep-eyed boy of 
Nazareth. Seldom in human history has sheer intellect- 
ual power, practical sense and penetrating judgment come 
so near replacing poetical intuition. 

At first sight it might seem unfortunate that the mantle 
of Giorgione should have fallen upon one so contrasted 
in temperament, but this is by no means certain. A 
closer affinity would have resulted in imitation, not to 
say plagiarism, in admiring repetition of favorite themes 
and telling effects, in constantly lessening vitality and 
deepening mannerism. For all this Titian had not the 
slightest temptation. He was not primarily an admirer 
of Giorgione ; indeed he seems never to have been an 
admirer of any one. He merely understood. He, too, 
was a man, powerful in his own right and endowed with 
impulses and individuality far too definite and assertive 
to be greatly modified by contact with other men. He 
saw at a glance the power of Giorgione's art, but what 
appealed to him was not the effective expression of Gior- 
gione's ideal ; it was rather the efficiency with which 
this same art could be made to express his own. It was 
the good fortune of Venice that Giorgione 's art fell to 
the keeping, not of a worshiper, but of an understander, 
and that thus the art of an individual, escaping fossiliza- 
tion and endued with power of enduring growth, became 
the art of Venice. 

It must not be concluded from the foregoing that the 
two men had nothing in common. The deep poetical 
fancy, the subtle mysticism, the delight in hint and sug- 
gestion which never degenerates into a mere puzzle, of 
all this side of Giorgione's nature Titian had little. But 
the two were at one in rejecting tradition in both matter 
and manner. They have no taint of asceticism, no sym- 
pathy for pale-faced and emaciated spirituality. Martyr- 
doms and fastings seem to them no fit subject for art. 
While neither is coarsely sensual, both believe in the 
glory of the flesh and the delight of the eye, and have no 
place in art or nature for the spirituality or the devotion 
which is incompatible with the goodliness of man's life. 
Both were good livers, but neither was a glutton or a de- 
bauchee. Both painted the traditi'onal religious themes, 
but with both these themes were conventional rather than 
matters of personal choice. Both were conventionally 
religious but to both nature was the one reality. But 
when all this is admitted, the gulf between the two men 
is as deep as ever. Giorgione is a poet, an idealist of the 
most extreme type. Titian is a man of the world, sane, 
self-controlled, powerful in intellect, resourceful and ap- 
preciative of current ideals and standards, a full partici- 
pant in the ambitions, the struggles and the pleasures 
of his time. Giorgione had " the divine insanity of noble 
minds " ; Titian was the apotheosis of sanity. 

Titian's art covers every part of the recognized field of 
Italian painting. There is no line that he does not take 
up, nor is it easy to say in which he is strongest. Our 
thought turns involuntarily, perhaps, to the great religi- 
ous themes which characterize Italian art. The numer- 
ous examples of these themes in Titian's art are, perhaps, 
the best known of all his works. There is, first of all, 
the long line of Madonnas, sometimes simple and iso- 
lated, as in the Gipsy Madonna, more often with attendant 
saints, as in the Madonna at Dresden or the monumental 


composition of the Frari. These conceptions, though not 
offering a new t5rpe, give to the type a dignity and an 
artistic value hitherto unknown.. Titian's Madonna is 
boldy untraditional. She is beautiful but not sad or im- 
pressively spiritual. She shows no preeminent capacity 
for sympathy, no exaltation through suffering. As Bel- 
lini's Madonna epitomizes the spirit of Christianity, its 
travail of spirit and finer sensitiveness to pain and sym- 
pathy, so Titian's Madonna represents the worldly or 
secular temper and ideal which have been developing 
along side the religious ideal from the first She is 
dignified, strong, self-controlled, gracious, beautiful, the 
embodiment of good health, good manners and good 
sense, beautiful in courtly grace and in her sober, healthy 
impulses. It is not alone the traditional religious spirit 
that we miss. Equally absent are the girlish glee of Cor- 
reggio's Madonnas, the sentimentality of Carlo Dolce's 
saints, the elegant refinement of Raphael's Cardellino and 
even the fond maternal affection in which so many 
artists have found their passport to popular favor. To 
one wonted to these expressions of sentiment and grace 
Titian's Madonnas may easily seem phlegmatic and cold, 
and such has been the frequent criticism. To all of 
which we can only reply that Titian had little sympathy 
either with the morbid religious "experiences," which 
have always appealed to a limited number, or with the 
shallower types of character and more effervescent mani- 
festations of emotion. These goodly personages have a 
dignity and a sobriety which is to him far more worthy 
and more beautiful than the tripping grace of Correg- 
gio's fairy forms or the morbid sensitiveness of the tradi- 
tignal religious Madonna. It is far from true, however, to 
call these Madonnas cold. They simply have natural 
dignity and reserve. If they do not exuberate with mater- 
nal tenderness it is because Titian sees no good reason why 
they should, and very cogent reasons why they should 


not. Just why should a Madonna seated in state, and re- 
ceiving the homage of dignified personages, belittle the 
occasion by explosions of maternal tenderness ? Such an 
irrelevancy is possible only for a light and frivolous 
spirit. It is to Titian unendurable. 

The advantage of this sobriety and restraint is appar- 
ent when we come to those occasions which really do 
call for great emotion. These grander dramatic themes 
are a specialty of Titian's art. The mind reverts at 
once to the Assumption, the best known and, in some 
sense, the grandest of all his conceptions. This stupen- 
dous creation of Titian's youth set a standard which, in 
some ways, he was never able to surpass despite the 
steady growth of fifty years. 

Much has been said of the skill with which the 
painter has made all the details of this wonderful com- 
position unite into one harmonious and perfectly concen- 
trated impression, the gradation of light which surrounds 
the Madonna with a blaze of glory fading on every side 
and leaving the figures below in somber shadow, the 
psychic focus which makes every upturned expectant face 
point attention irresistibly toward the center of interest, 
the composition, at once novel and admirable in its 
enticing guidance of the eye, the faultless mastery of 
every resource to swell the volume of superhuman emo- 
tion. But it is not often recognized that the Madonna 
herself is the sufficient justification of all this stupen- 
dous centralization. No other Madonna ever conceived 
could endure this ordeal or play this superhuman r61e. 
Imagine for a moment the mediaeval heaven, the city of 
golden streets and gates of glistening pearl, the throne 
of dazzling splendor, the monarch before whose un- 
speakable majesty ten thousand times ten thousand bow 
in homage, the paean of victory, the sheen of dazzling 
apparel and the splendor of more than earthly pageant, 
all that fires and dazes the imagination of a sense- 


trained race. And then imagine the gate flung wide open, 
and a mortal woman ushered in to be crowned queen of 
heaven. What kind of a woman must she be ? A se- 
rene placid scion of a high-born house trained in the 
empty forms of aristocratic manners ? A girlish mother 
cooing to her babe ? A gentle martyr drooping beneath 
the weight of sympathy and pain ? None of all these. 
One and all they would be misfits in this setting of ter- 
rible glory, prostrated by the splendor and unnerved by 
the excitement they could not bear. Titian better 
gauges the requirements of the stupendous drama. The 
great impassive emotionless creature of lesser occasions 
now reveals her latent power. Too great for little occa- 
sions, too deep for trifling joys, her face now discloses 
the emotion of her mighty spirit as with a sigh of in- 
efl^able relief that the ordeal is over, she rises to the 
position which is hers by no accident or gift but by vir- 
tue of her very being. Even though another should be 
made queen she would still be the queen by right of the 
queenliness in her which no choosing can alter and no 
gift can increase. Well may God Almighty descend to 
welcome a creature so glorious in her nobility and 
power. Such is the genius of Titian. Himself no 
mediaevalist, no seer of heavenly visions, he compre- 
hends the dramatic necessities and the possibilities of so 
noble a theme, sketches in large lines the grand rdles 
of the vast drama and stages with incomparable dignity 
and power a theme supreme alike in its pageant splen- 
dor and its soul-stirring emotion. A long familiarity 
with his work leaves the clear impression that his in- 
terest in the themes he represents is purely dramatic. 
He is no devotee like Fra, Angelico. His brush is 
guided by unerring science, not by the Holy Ghost. But 
of that science he is completely master. The grandeur 
of his conceptions is equaled by the perfection of his 
workmanship and the resourcefulness of his invention. 


Note, for instance, the Deposition, that grandiose crea- 
tion of his latest days, which, though dimmed by ap- 
proaching blindness and marred by the feeble work of a 
pupil to whom its completion was entrusted, still shows 
the master at ninety-nine in full possession of his power. 
To what does the picture owe its intensity ? Not to the 
faces where the purpose of the blind painter has most 
obviously miscarried ; nor yet to the color or the compo- 
sition, effective as these are. But note the statues on 
either side, the Moses and the figure with the cross, the 
old and new dispensations. It is not that the figures 
are peculiarly fine or expressive, but that they are stat- 
ues, that they stand stony and unmoved in the presence 
of heart-rending sorrow and quivering despair. It is in 
this antithesis between the moving and the unmoved, 
between those that suffer and those that heed not their 
suffering, that inheres the power of the great tragedy. 
This use of a foil or emotional contrast, which occurs 
again in the Crowning with Thorns, is but one among a 
multitude of devices which fill the repertory of this con- 
summate master of dramatic art. 

Seldom has such an art been mastered without dwarf- 
ing other faculties,- but with Titian this was not the case. 
First among dramatic painters, dramatic painting was 
not first among his achievements. As time goes by the 
part of his art which shines with greatest lustre is clearly 
portrait. Of his virifle portraits the Procurator, Jacopo 
Soranzio, may serve as a type. For the present we may 
ignore all questions of color and shadow, of brush work 
and process generally. What was Jacopo Soranzio and 
what purpose does Titian make him serve in the interest 
of art ? 

Jacopo Soranzio was many things and incidentally he 
was some things quite unworthy and contemptible. He 
was, we may assume, a man of his time, subject to its 
passions, its weaknesses and its mistakes. He was a 


man of wealth, showy and sordid by spells at least. He 
was a father and maybe a grandfather, indulgent and 
soft-hearted toward some spoiled child who knew the 
way to his heart. He was an epicure, it maybe, or a 
dyspeptic, churlish and ill-tempered when the fit was on, 
prone to reveal the pettiness of a not too magnanimous 
nature. He was not above the grosser passions, and 
we may easily picture him as laughing at some coarse 
story or unseemly jest. He was unscrupulous and under- 
handed, we may judge, from the story that he bought 
his office with a large sum. And then, too, he may have 
had his poetical side, his moods of finer fancy and 
dreamy re very. These or like things, and many more, 
Jacopo Soranzio must have been, for such minglings of 
dissimilar and contradictory things all men are. From 
such a miscellany the artist makes his choice. 

What is Jacopo Soranzio in Titian's portrait ? Neither 
the father nor the politician nor the epicure nor the 
dyspeptic nor the embodiment of querulous temper or 
coarse mirth. He is neither poet nor dreamer nor dev- 
otee. He is the magistrate of Venice. It matters not 
whether he was well adapted to the r61e or not ; it is the 
r61e which Titian wishes him to play. Foibles and pas- 
sions and sentiments, however much in evidence in his 
character or face, find no place in his portrait. The 
firm purpose, the calm strength, free alike from passion 
and unnerving sentiment, the dignity and power of Ven- 
ice, all these come to Soranzio with his robes of office 
and Titian paints him clothed with the true character of 
his great function. 

What is responsible for Titian's choice ? The office ? 
Perhaps so, but as we look further we are in doubt. In 
the Physician Parma we see the same character and to 
a less degree in Titian's virile portraits throughout. The 
conclusion is irresistible that in the spirit with which 
Titian infuses his portraits he is disclosing to us prima- 


rily himself. He incarnated the qualities which charac- 
terize Soranzio, perhaps far more than Soranzio did* 
The strong, self-contained, assertive manliness of Titian 
was his unconscious criterion of beauty in man, his test 
of that best self which it is always the privilege and the 
duty of the portrait painter to present. This selective 
action of his own personality fitted Titian in the 
highest degree to become the interpreter of the type of 
powerful manhood which distinguished Venice. In con- 
trast with Florence Venice had no philosophers, no 
poets, no speculators about remoter truths, no seer of 
visions or dreamer of dreams. The Venetians were men 
who did things. Powerful, practical, balanced and sane, 
they wielded the double scepter of government and trade 
with consummate judgment and skill. No other city 
could have given Titian subjects so adapted to his art ; 
no other painter could have so well comprehended Vene- 
tian character. 

The characteristics above referred to seem less 
adapted to the interpretation of female character. In 
fact they are so. Titian's portraits of women lack the 
psychic subtlety which the subject invites. Physical 
beauty in woman, on the other hand, never had a more 
competent exponent. It is significant that women are 
less literally represented in his art than men. There is 
more of pose, of conscious playing with individuality, 
often amounting to a compromise between reality and 
fancy. The portrait of a beautiful model becomes a 
*' Flora," another is " la Bella," etc., names in themselves 
suggesting that the individuals were but pretexts for 
works of the imagination. In this there is gain and loss. 
The individual loses something of cherished importance, 
but to us, to whom reality and myth have become one, 
the play of unfettered fancy has equal value and signifi- 

The oft-repeated praises of Titian's technical achieve- 


ments have been intentionally subordinated to the con- 
sideration of his ideal and his artistic personality. That 
he was the master colorist is the dictum of all judgments, 
the well- worn phrase of seer and echo alike. Few real- 
ize, however, either the nature or the significance of that 
supremacy. The fact that color impressions can be sep- 
arated from form impressions and that when so sepa- 
rated the shadows before reserved for form expression 
now lend themselves to the enrichment and blending of 
color far beyond anything known in nature, making of 
color thus emancipated the most stimulating and pleas- 
ure-giving language addressed to the sense of sight ; this 
is little dreamed of by those who repeat the well-known 
praise. Of this language Titian is absolute master. Out- 
lines are dim, modeling almost ignored, but the stimu- 
lated senses take no note of the omission. With infinite 
richness the color masses are joined in mystic union 
behind the shadow masses which blend and soften all in 
ineffable harmony. Forms are but hinted, features half 
expressed ; no matter. Drunk with pleasure, the senses 
gather the half impressions and build them out with 
delight, asking no plainer clew. As we stand and look 
at the portrait, " la Bella,*' how paltry are all colors about 
us compared with this sublime symphony ! Well may 
flowers fade and bright-winged plumage fall and Nature 
hide her face, for here at last is color ; here is art. 


Special Sibliograpb^. 

Number Sizteen. 

Note : An entente cordiale existed between the artists of the 
Decadence and the critical taste of the eighteenth century, which 
was dominated by the baroque in architecture and the corre- 
sponding tlorid and artificial in other forms of art; it was then 
that these artists found their biographers. Modern opinion has 
reversed the judgment of that time. The painters who had the 
misfortune to follow the close of an extraordinarily brilliant and 
prolonged creative period and who, able as they were technically 
and intellectually, represent no new and original ideas, have not 
engaged the attention of modern writers. 

The lighter writings of the eighteenth and early nineteenth 
centuries are in the main inaccessible to us, therefore our bibli- 
ographical material in English is scant. Blanc, in his laudable 
endeavor to present a history of all the schools, has treated 
several of the Decadent painters; where his writings (not trans- 
lated from the FrenchJ can be obtained they will form the main 
dependence of the student. The biographical dictionaries of 
Bryan and of Spooner although superseded by Perkins and 
Champlin, sometimes contain fuller information ; and in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica are biographical articles on the more 
popular artists of this time. Consult also the Lectures of Flax- 
man and of Sir Joshua Reynolds and Richter's writings on the 
National Gallery of London. 

Anacreon. Odes (trans, by Thomas Stanley), with life. III. 
N. Y., Scribner. $7.50. 

Blanc, Charles. Ecole espagnol. Ecole napolitaine. 

Iicoles ombriennes et romaines. Histoire des peintres des 
toutes les ecoles. 

Bryan, Michael. Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. 

London, Bell, 1886. $6.50: or $22.50. 

The biographical dictionaries of Bryan and of Spooner are recommended 
as supplementary aids tp Perkins and Champlin whose work, allhough a later 
compilation, sometimes condenses or omits information that the student de- 
sires in full. 

Chennevieres, Henri, Conte de. Lds Tiepolo. Artistes 
Celebres. 111. Paris. Librairie de T art 1898. 5fr. 

An excellent biography, 

Flazman, J. Lectures on Sculpture. London, Macmillan. 


Agreeable in style and sound in judgment. 


KcBnis, Frederic. La jeunesse de Salvator Rosa. Tours. 

A small volume, written in vivacious and simple narrative style. 

Landon, C. P. Vies et ceuvres des peintres les plus cele- 
bres. 2 V. 111. Paris, 1803. 

Iieighton, Lord. Addresses given before students of the 
Roycd Academy. London, Longmans. $2.50. 

A series of lectures, delivered while Lord Leighton was President of the 
Royal Academy; their subjects of especial interest to thoughtful art students, 
their style elegant and polished. 

Leitschnle, Franz Friedrich. Giovanni Battista Tie- 
polo. Eine Studie zur Kiinstgeschicte des 18. Jahrhunderts. 

111. Wurzburg, 1896. 

Memes, J. S. Antonio Canova. Edinburgh, 1825. 

Includes jj^eneral review of Italian sculpture. 

Molmenti, PoMPEo. Acque-forti dei Tiepolo. 1S96. Les 
fresques de la Villa Valmarana a Vicenza. 1881. Venice. 

Acque-forti, etc., one hundred and sixty-five reproductions of enjj^ravinprs 
and drawings by Tiepolo. A means of studying the working ^out of an idea 
from its tirst inception that is not often offered the student. 

Les fresques, etc., a magnificent folio of photographic reproductions. 
Tiepolo to be understood must be studied in the inventions of his lighter 
mood of which these frescos are a most characteristic example. The name of 
the publisher is a guarantee of the artistic value and importance of these vol- 

Moore, Thomas. Poems : with translations of odes of 
Anacreon Boston, Houghton. $4.50. N. Y., Crowell. 60c. 
upward. Appleton. $3.00. 

Moreau, Adrien. Antonio Canal dit le Canaletto. III. 
Paris. liibrairie de V art. 1894. 5tr. 

The little biographies of this series are yery uniform in excellence. 

Morgan, Lady. Life euid times of Scdvator Rosa, 2 v. 

London, 1824. 

Moses, Henry. "Works of Antonio Canova, with biog- 
raphy by Count Cicognara. 111. V. 2. London, 1876. 

Outline illustrations of Canova's sculptures, with descriptive text. 

Quincy, Quatremere de. Canova et ses ouvrages. Paris, 

Shedd, Julia A. Famous Painters and Paintings. Boston, 
Osgood, 1881. $2.00. 

Smith, Gerald. Spanish and French Art. 111. Hand- 
books of art history. N. Y., Scribner. $2.00. 

Spooner, Samuel. Biographical History of the Fine Arts. 

2 V. N. Y., Leypoldt. 1807. 

Sweetser, M. F. Ouido Reni. III. Artist-Biographies, 
Boston, Houghton. $1.25. 


Based on a biog-raphical account of the Bolog-nese artists by Malvasia, 
an Italian contemporary of Giiido. 

Symonds, John Addington. Renaissance in Italy, v. 6., 
V. 7. (The Catholic Reaction.) London, Smith & Elder. 
N. Y., Holt. $2.00 each. Studies of Greek Poets. 2 v. N. Y., 
Harper, 1901. $3.50. 

The Studies have Symonds' usual witchery and suggestiveness. 

Tyler, Sarah {pseud.). Old Masters and their Pictures. 
Boston, Little. $1.50. 

Brief biographies in popular handbook form. 

Washburn, £. W. The Spanish Masters. N. Y., Putnam, 

1884. $2'.00. 

Wedmore, Frederick. The Masters of Genre Painting. 

London, Paul, 1880. 7s. 6d. 

V(rinckelmann, Joachim Johan. The History of Ancient 
Art. With Life of Winckelmann. Boston, Osgood, 1880. 

Womum, Ralph. Epochs of Painting. London, Chap- 
man. 1864. 20S. 


American Architect, 1882, v. 11 ; 1900, v. 70. 

American Journal of Education, 1878, v. 22. 

Appleton's Journal, 1879, v. 7. 

Arena, 1896, v. 17; 1898, v. 19. 

Art Journal, 1870, v. 22; 1876, v. 33; 1877, v. 35; 1883, v. 47; 

1886, V. 53. 
Atlantic Monthly, 1895, v. 7. 
Brush and Pencil, v. 2, 141 ; 201. 
Catholic World, 1902, v. 75. 
Chautauc^jan, 1888, V. 8. 
Forum, 1889, v. 7. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1882, v. 25; 1902, v. 27, v. 28. 
International Review, 1878, v. 5. 
Littell's Living Age, 1899, v. 220. 
Magazine of Art, 1885, v. 8; 1887, v. 10; 1896, v. 19; 1900, 

V. 23. 
Nation, 1889, v. 48; 1893, v. 56. 
New Eng lander, 1874, v. 33. 
Nineteenth Century, 1894, v. 35. 
Scribnbr's Magazine. 1898. v. 24. 
Spectator, 1884, v. 57. 
Westminster Review, 1871, v. 96. 


Xc00on0 I an& 2. 



T^70 FlorentineB. 
IL BRONZING (Angiolo di CoBimo). 1502-1572, 

GIORGIO VASARI. 1512-1574. 

Outline for Study, 

Decline of art in the latter part of the sixteenth 
century ; the source of artistic greatness ; causes 
of decadence. 

Bronzino — his relation to Pontormo. 

Academic quality of his larger paintings ; Christ 
in Limbo. 

Elegance of his portraits ; use of pastel ; the Pan- 
ciatichi portraits. 

Vasari's varied talents, his extraordinary industry, 
his stainless character. 

Numerous commissions for architectural designs 
and mural decorations. 

Characteristics of his historical paintings ; poetic 
interest of his portraits. 

His wide circle of friends and noble patrons ; the 
Renaissance in Vasari's time. 

Volume and value of his literary work ; his partial- 
ity for the Tuscan school ; his attitude toward 
Michelangelo ; Vasari ** the Boswell of art 

Topic for Further Research, 

The dogma of Limbo. 

Modern art criticism vs, that of the eighteenth 
century. (Atlantic Monthly, v. 76 ; Nineteenth 
Century, v. 35 ; Symonds, Renaissance, v. VIL) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4500b —Christ in liimbo. 

9.7 X 14.7. Commissioned by Giovanni Zanchini for the 
family chapel in Santa Croce, Florence. It contains accurate 
portraits — among them Pontormo, Giovanni Battista Gello a 
noted academician, Bacchiacca the painter, and two noble 
ladies ** of such excellent report as to deserve to be thus immor- 
talized " — Costanza da Somaia, wife of B. Doni, and Madonna 
Camilla Tebaldi del Corno. 

Does the Savior's appearance excite the emotions 
natural under the circumstances ? Is the work character- 
ized by powerful imagination, deep sincerity, absence of 
artificiality ? Is its impressiveness enhanced by the ex- 
treme upper part ? 

Cf. Sodoma's painting of the same subject, 3225^, re- 
membering that Sodoma worked in fresco. Cf. also 
1349^ from the Spanish Chapel. Is there anything 
of value in the fourteenth century representation that 
is lacking in the later pictures ? Has the grotesque ele- 
ment been entirely eliminated ? 

Had the problem of drawing the nude too obvious 
an interest to Bronzinoj? Cf. Michelangelo's Last Judg- 
ment, 3870^; and Signorelli's frescos, 1873^, 1876^, 
1879^. Which is conceived more as a picture ? Which 
tells the story better ? In which is the nude treated with 
more recognition of beauty? What are the essential 
differences between Signorelli and Bronzino ? Which 
represents the higher plane of achievement ? 

Again compare Bronzino with Sodoma. How do they 
differ ? Note particularly the backs and shoulders of the 
three men at the left in 4500^. Is this a normal muscu- 
lar development ? Does it act as a foil to the smoother 
forms elsewhere in the picture ? Does it add to the 
value of the work ? 

Which of these various artists has arranged his com- 
position more effectively, managed lights and darks most 
skillfully? Hqw do the portraits affect the picture? 


No. 4504^ — Portrait of Isucresia dei Pucci, wile of Barto- 

lommeo Panciatichi 

How is this portrait reminiscent of persons often met 
in real life ? With what physical charms has the artist 
endowed his subject ? In what ways are refinement and 
beauty of character emphasized ? Is the characteriza- 
tion subtle, baffling or fully expressed? Cf. 4247^, 
3526^. Which is more suggestive? How does this 
differ from a Venetian portrait ? 

Has Bronzino struck a new note in portraiture ? Is 
such work as this sure of enduring reputation ? Why ? 

No. 4510^ — ^Lorenzo the BCagnificeiit. 

2.3^x2.10. Presented to Duke Alessandro for his villa at 

Is this a study from life ? Is it an idealization ? How 
does it compare with the portrait of the youthful Lorenzo 
in Botticelli's Adoration of Magi, 1628**? 

What evidences of thoughtful appreciation of char- 
acter? Are attitude, face, hands and accessories consis- 
tently expressive ? Does such harmonious adjustment 
occur in real life ? 

Separate the picture from what you know of Lorenzo's 
history ; how then should you interpret this man's dis- 
position, tastes, ambitions ? 

What is indicated by the masks ? the vases ? What is 
their artistic value ? Is this a masterpiece of portraiture ? 

What is the value of hands in character suggestion ? 
What artists have introduced them for that purpose ? 



450ol> . , . Florence — Uffizi : Christ in Limbo. 

4504^ . . . Florence — UflSzi : Portrait of Lucsezia Panciatichi. 


45io^ • • • Florence — Uffizi : Lorenzo the Magnificent. 

Appleton's Journal — 1879. v. 7. 323-327. 
Atlantic Monthly — 1895. v. 76. 263-270. 
Berenson .... Florentine Painters. 82. 

Blanc Ecole Florentine. 

Heaton History of Painting. 181. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 640-645. 

Magazine of Art — 1885. v. 8. 250. 

Morelli Italian Painters, v. I, 130-134. 

Nation — 1893. v. 56. 271-273. 

Nineteenth Century — 1894. v. 35. 828-837. 

Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 365-368. 

Shedd Famous Painters and Painting. 211-321. 

Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 394-408. 

(Catholic Reaction.) 
Vasari ..... Lives, etc. v. I. 
Wornum .... Epochs of Painting. 353-354. 


Outline for Study, 

Baroccio's early studies ; interest aroused by his 
paintings ; flattering offers from patrons of high 
rank in Italy and other countries. 

Baroccio's famous contemporaries in Rome and 
North Italy; his failure to identify himself 
with the dominant art movements of his time. 

His emotionalism ; facility ; his color-scheme ; his 

Baroccio's efforts to introduce an eclectic system ; 
his scholars in Rome. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4520^ — Christ appearing to Mary. 
Where is the scene laid 1 What emotions are indicated 
by Mary's gesture and expression ? Is her pose momen- 


tary or fixed ? Which is suggested by the drapery ? Is 
there any discrepancy ? 

How serious a piece of work is this ? Cf. an early 
representation of the subject, ii6o^. Which is the 
most adequate rendering ? How has each artist under- 
stood the Bible narrative ? Does the earlier work relate 
all the circumstances? In which is the setting more 
real ? more interesting ? Which is better adapted for 
a church pictiire ? 

How is the romantic spirit manifest in 4520^? Have 
technical considerations absorbed the artist? Is there evi- 
dence of the influence of another artist ? 

No. 4521^ — Madonna del Popolo. 

8.3 X 1 1.8. Painted, 15791 for a fraternity of Arezzo. The 
largest and most careful work of Baroccio. 

Christ pronounces his benediction on those who engage in 
works of charity. 

In this picture who is the intercessor ? What different 
sentiments animate the two groups into which the people 
below are divided ? What types are introduced ? Has 
the artist been more fortunate in local than in ideal types? 

Recall other pictures in which there are two strata — 
4ii3^» 3545* > 3435^ > etc. With what degree of ability 
has Baroccio worked this problem ? Is this composition 
well bound together ? Is it free from confusion ? Is it 
violent in action ? Does it give the impression of fullness 
of life, of innumerable persons? Is there a feeling of 
space ? Is there atmosphere ? Are the two synony- 

What indications of mannerism in 4520^ and 4521**? 
Compare with Bronzino : what differences of technique 
and training? Are 4500^ and 4521^ equally mannered? 
equally sincere ? In which is more appreciation for 
beauty ? Is this a weakness ? What advances in facility 
over earlier painters? What are the excellences and 
what the defects of these later paintings? Are they 


good pictures to live with — /. ^., would they mould our 
sentiments in a desirable form ? Would they retain their 
interest ? 


4520^ . . . Florence — Uffizi : Christ appearing to Mary. 
4521b. , . Florence — Uffizi: Madonna del Popolo. 

Blanc Ecoles ombrienne et romaine. 

Heaton History of Painting. 180. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 648. 




Outline for Study, 

The legacy bequeathed to the seventeenth cent- 
ury ; disadvantages under which its artists de- 
signed and wrought. (Symonds, Fine Arts.) 

Effect of the Counter Reformation on Italian 
painting. (Liibke.) 

Artistic antecedents of the Eclectics of Bologna. 

Ludovico Caracci, founder of a new system ; his 
seriousness and intelligence ; trials of his novi. 
tiate; Passignano, his wise and sympathetic 

Ludovico's travels and study of celebrated artists ; 
his first theory — universal imitation. 

The Caracci Academy — severity of its aims and 
methods; motto of the school — its erroneous 
theory but beneficial results ; wide influence of 
the Academy. 


Character of Ludovico's art in its maturity ; pa- 
tronage of ecclesiastical establishments. 

Agostino's part in the association ; his traits as 
painter ; distinction as engraver. 

True greatness of Annibale ; influences by which 
he was swayed in his early career ; final develop- 
ment of a manner peculiar to himself. 

His versatility; historical, mythical and genre 
subjects ; painter of landscape for its own sake. 

Annibale's frescos in the Farnese palace ; esti- 
mate of their artistic value. 

Lack of spontaneity in works of the Caracci. 

Topic for Further Research. 

Bologna — its University and its learned women. 
(American Journal of Education ; Catholic 
World ; Chautauquan ; International Review.) 

Importance of Bologna as an art center. (Amer- 
ican Architect.) 

Relation of Art to morality. (Arena; LittelPs 
Living Age ; Eclectic Monthly ; Leighton's 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4550^ — Madonna, Angels and Saints. 

The Saints — Dominic, Francis, Monica and Mary Magdalen — 
are said to be portraits of the Bargellini family, for whom the 
painting was executed. (Baedeker substitutes the name Clara 
for Monica.) The shafts in the background probably include 
the famous leaning towers of Asinelli and Garisenda, erected 
in Bologna in the twelfth century. 

Is this an original arrangement ? Why are the figures 
separated into two well-defined groups ? Is it usual to 
light the background and cast so heavy a shade in front ? 
What effect is thus obtained ? 

Is this a successful realization of Ludovico's theory ? 
Is there one dominant idea t Are there significant lead- 


ing lines ? Does all the foreshortening correspond to 
one point of view ? Is the picture remarkable for aerial 
perspective? Is it quiet, harmonious? Are draperies 
well arranged and textures appropriate ? Is there imita- 
tion of one or of several artists ? 

Is the picture elevated in sentiment ? How has the 
artist modified the character of the saints ? Why ? 
What is the meaning of St. Dominic's outstretched 
hands ? Are the cherubs successful ? 

No. 4560^ — Last Communion of St. Jerome. 

Compare the St. Jerome with Bellini's representation 
in Madonna of San Zaccaria, 2149^; with Veronese's, 


Why is the conception so different? Which is the 

more pleasing ? more inspiring ? Which appealed more to 

the artist ? Has Caracci gone as far as artistic propriety 

permits in representing feebleness and emaciation ? 

Had he gone farther would the incident have been more 

impressive? Cf. 4642^. 

Are the faces of the attendant monks idealized ? Com- 
pare the angels with 4550^. Which is the better — 
the out-door suggestion or the in-door ? Why ? How is 
the idea of motion conveyed ? Is their action more ap- 
propriate in one picture than the other? Have the 
artists regarded their theme with equal seriousness ? 

To what details of technique did Agostino direct his 
attention ? Was he a strong artist ? Did he worthily 
illustrate the aims of his school ? 

No. 4570b —The Virgin of Siienoe. 

1.3 X i.6>^. Bailly'6 inventory of the collection of Louis XIV 
says this was painted by Domenichino, after a design by Anni- 
bale. The surface of the painting is injured by cracking. 

Why is this an attractive picture ? How is the con- 
ception unusual ? What reminder of a religious charac- 
ter ? Why are flowers and fruit introduced ? 


Is drawing correct ? forms delicately modeled ? Is the 
relaxation of childish sleep well rendered ? 

What evidences of a pupiPs hand either in design or 
execution ? 

No. 4572b — A Bacchante. 

Life size. 

Has this the classic spirit? What indications that 
the mythological attributes were an after-thought ? Is 
this picture alone in such a suggestion ? (Study other 
mythological subjects in sixteenth century painting.) 

Is a spirit of levity allowable here ? What is the 
significance of the grapes? Is the satyr vicious and 
stupid or has he human intelligence and sympathies ? 
What mistakes have artists made in their treatment of 
classic themes ? 

Cf. 4570^. What points are emphasized by distribu- 
tion of lights ? Is there any resemblance in the models ? 
Are the two pictures similar in treatment of fiesh ? of 
half-tones ? Is the muscular quality of the flesh appro- 
priate to the idea of a bacchante ? In what respect is 
45 7 2** a more able work than 4570'*? Has it other than 
a technical interest ? 

Did the Caracci practise a true eclecticism or does 
their work show the predominating influence of some 
one great artist ? 



4550b . , . Bologna — Gallery: Madonna, Angels and Saints. 


4560b . . . Bologna — Gallery: Last Communion of St. Jerome. 


4570b. , . Paris — Louvre: The Virgin of Silence. 
4572b. . . Florence — Urtizi : A Bacchante. 


American Architect — 1900. v. 70. October 20: 19-21. Nov- 
ember 10 : 43-46. 
American Journal of Education — 1878. v. 22. 275. 
Arena — 1898. v. 9. April: 483-495. 

Blanc Ecole bolonaise. 

Catholic World — 1902. v. 75. Augwst : 596. 
Chautauquan — 1888. v. 8. March : 366-368. 
Eclectic Monthly — 1872. v. 79. December: 718-723. 

Heaton History of Painting. 182-186. 

International Review — 1878. v. 5. 185-197. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 641 ; 649-657. 

Leighton ..... Addresses, etc. 37-62. 
Litteirs Living Age — 1899. v. 220. 1-15. 

LUbke History of Art. v. II. 520-527. 

Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 231-234. 
Symonds .... Fine Arts. 490-496; 498-499; 503-505. 
Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VI. ch. 2 ; v. VII. 


Tytler Old Masters and their Pictures. 212-218. 

Williamson . . . Cities of Northern Italy, 192-230. 
Wornum .... Epochs of Painting. 362-381. 

ArtistB Formed by the Caracci. 

Note : The reaction from a mannerism based on the works 
of some one great artist led to the establishment of local eclectic 
schools throughout northern and central Italy. Of these the 
largest and most influential was the Academy at Bologna, led, 
after the death of the Caracci, by Guido Reni and later by 
Guercino : the ** severity and solidity " of its founders becoming 
modified in the following generation. 

The more prominent of these academicians may be grouped as 
follows for purposes of comparison : a three who first studied 
under Denys Calvaert, a Fleming, settled in Bologna — Guido 
Reni, Albano and Domenichino ; ^ two who are ranked as late 
Florentines — Allori and Carlo Dolce ; and c two who developed 
individual methods somewhat at variance with early eclectic 
doctrines — Guercino and Sassoferrato. 

GUIDO RENI. 1575-1642. 

** The painter of Paradise. 


Outline for Study, 

Denys Calvaert and his distinguished pupils in 
Bologna ; Guido's fidelity to his iirst master. 

Guido's dower of talent ; reasons why his era was 
unfavorable to his highest development. 

Dramatic quality^of his early works. 

Guido under the influence of the Caracci ; period 
of transition — development towards naturalness 
and beauty. 

Cabals among followers of the Caracci. 

Guido id Rome ; difference between his ideals and 
those of Caravaggio. 

Commissions from Cardinal Borghese ; the Pope's 
chapel in Palace of Monte Cavallo ; Guido a 
great frescante ; his success and the rancor of 
his rivals. 

Return to Bologna; temporary disgust with his 
profession ; importunity of patrons and friends. 

Urgent recall to Rome ; his long period of resi- 
dence there ; the Pope's favor and social honors. 

Refined form and delicate color of Guido's best 
period ; lifelong practise of academic study; tech- 
nical mastery. 

Commissions from other cities ; final return to 
Bologna ; characteristics of his late period and 
decline of artistic conscientiousness. 

Guido's reputation in the eighteenth century ; his 
art in the light of modern criticism. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Presentation of Satan in Art. (Magazine of Art, v. 1 9 .) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4600i> ~ St. Peter and St. Paul. 

Figures colossal. Allusion is made to the dispute at Antioch, 
during which Paul rebuked Peter. 


Does this carry with it a sense of reality ? Does the 
incident justify dramatic action ? Is this an interpreta- 
tion of traditional characters ? 

What was the condition of art in Rome when Peter 
sojourned there ? May traditional types of the apostles 
have been based on actual portraits ? 

What examples of clever foreshortening ? Is the mus- 
cular development like Bronzino's work ? Is it natural 
to a man of Peter's age and mode of life ? Did Guido 
ever allow expression of emotion to distort faces and 
limbs out of besruty ? 

Why are the mantles so full ? Is an appropriate 
material suggested ? Have landscape and sky a sympa- 
thetic quality ? 

No. 4602i> — Dejanira and the Centaur NessuB. 

6.5 X 7.10. This picture, rich in color, masterful in expression, 
attracts attention even among the glowing Titians and the 
strong shadows of the Spanish School, its neighbors on the 
walls of the Salon Carre. 

Hercules and Dejanira, journeying, came to the river Evenus, 
across which Nessus carried travelers. Hercules waded the 
stream while Dejanira was entrusted to the Centaur who, capti- 
vated by her beauty, attempted to flee with his fair burden. 
Hearing her cries Hercules shot an iarrow through the heart 
of Nessus who, with his last breath, bade Dejanira preserve a 
portion of his blood for a love-charm — the gift that avenged 
him by procuring, later, the terrible death of his slayer. 

Is this a spirited, an emotional conception of the situ- 
ation ? Are our sympathies drawn out ? 

How successfully is motion represented ? Is it more 
or less artificial than with Botticelli? Cf, 1613^. 

Are the figures consistent with each other in move" 
ment ? Is the Hercules in the background sufficient to 
localize the incident ? 

Does the design tastefully fill the space ? Are its 
lines harmonious and expressive ? Its masses of light 
and dark agreeably arranged ? Why are draperies volum- 
nious ? 


Which is most in evidence — the trained artist or the 
narrator of a story ? What was the case with Botticelli ? 
Do we need the story for the en joyment of these pictures? 

No. 4604b — Apollo and the Hours. 

Fresco on the ceiling of the principal room in the Casino of 
the Rospigliosi Palace. Commonly known as the *' Aurora," 
who is seen above the deep bhie sea ushering the Sun-god around 
whose chariot dance the Hours. The prevailing color-tones 
are sunny yellows and reds shading into blues and light greens, 
smoky tints and white. The color values are very imperfectly 
reproduced by the photographic process. 

What preparation on the part of the artist is involved 
in the interpretation of this myth ? In what spirit has 
Guido treated it ? By what incidents does the allegory 
explain itself? Do the glorious company seem to be 
descending to earth ? Should they ? What is the sig- 
nificance of the winged child ? Of the outstretched hands 
of Aurora and of the foremost Hour ? 

How has Guido expressed his sense of life and move- 
ment ? Is it strained or forced ? Coarse or uncouth ? 

Cf. 2067^, Mantegna^s Dance of Muses. Which 
offers the greatest difficulties in drawing ? Compare with 
Botticelli's scenes from classic story. Which of the 
three painters has been most successful in expressing his 
idea ? Analyze the differences. How are they to be 
explained ? Do they throw any light upon the spirit of the 
fifteenth and seventeenth centuries ? 

No. 4608^ — The Archangel Michael. 

Painted on silk. Considered in the eighteenth century a chef 
d' oeuvre of the artist's second manner. Commissioned by Car- 
dinal Sant' Onofrio, brother of Pope Urban VIII. Presented 
to the Capuchin church where it now hangs. It is said that 
Guido, working for the Barberini, gave to Satan the features of 
Pope Innocent Xwho had maltreated that family. The picture 
is reproduced in mosaic in St. Peter's. 

Is this a satisfactory conception of a warrior angel ? 

Is this the rush of irresistible onslaught? Does the 


archangel show the excitement of victory ? Is there a 
profounder feeling ? 

Does the prostrate figure suggest Satan ? Does it 
suggest a being of originally high powers and functions ? 
Judging from this what was the theologian's idea of the 
principle of evil ? 

Are there animation, grace, beauty in this picture ? 
Are there originality, imagination ? How thoroughly 
Christian is it ? How does it differ from 4602^ ? 

No. 4610b — VenuB and Cupid. 

Does this exemplify the classic deity's lack of self 
consciousness ? Does it suggest ennui ? lassitude ? The 
natural ease of leisurely existence ? the joy of living? Is 
this the conventional idea of Cupid ? Was this first 
conceived as a mythological theme or is it a mere study 
of a model ? 

Does it justify its name more truly than 4011^? Are 
these works equally free from unpleasant suggestion ? 
What effect has the artificial setting ? 

Cf. 4107^,4011^, 4002^, 3912^ and other represen- 
tations of the nude. Which indicates the more consum- 
mate knowledge ? Which is more beautiful in face and 
form, in line? What is there in 4610^ to suggest the 
later period of Guido's work ? 

General Questions. 

Is the sense of intense vitality always present in 
Guide's paintings ? Was his power to draw ever inade- 
quate to his conceptions ? Was he spiritually profound ? 

Is his art masculine in quality ? Is it ever unrefined ? Is 
there ever affectation or feebleness ? 

Was beauty a paramount consideration ? Was narra- 
tive, illustration, naturalness sacrificed to that ? 

Compare with Piero di Cosimo, Melozzo da Forli, 
Botticelli ; which has power to move you most deeply 
and why ? 



46oo*> . , . Milan — Brera: St. Peter and St. Paul. 

4602*^ . , . Paris — Louvre : Dejanira and the Centaur Nessus. 

4604^. . . Rome — Rospigliosi Palace, Casino: Apollo and the 

4608** . . . Rome — Capuchin Church : The Archangel Michael. 
46io>>. . . Dresden — Gallery: Venus and Cupid. 

Blanc Ecoie bolonaise. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 378-386. 

Heaton History of Painting. 187-189. 

Jarves Art Studies. 472-474. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 660-664. 

Liibke History of Art. v. II. 528-529. 

Magazine of Art — 1896. v. 19. 261-264; 305~3o8. 
Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 236-239. 
Sweetser .... Guido Reni. 

Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 379-383. 
Wornum .... Epochs of Painting. 383-386. 


'*The Anacreon of painting." 

Outline for Study, 

Albano in the school of Calvaert ; kindly rela- 
tions with Guido and Domenichino. 

Albano with Annibale Caracci in Rome ; frescos 
in Santa Maria della Pace ; in Torlonia Palace 
and Roman villas. 

Unceasing industry ; financial troubles of Albano's ^ 
latest years. 

His lightness of character; sensitiveness to 
grace and infantile beauty ; elegance of his art. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Greek lyric poetry; odes of Anacreon. (Ana- 
creon ; Symonds ; Moore.) 
Genre painting. (Wedmore.) 


Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 4660^ — Dsmce of little Lovea. 

What is the real motive of this picture ? Would there 
be gain or loss if the little musicians were eliminated ? 

Why are the bows and arrows cast aside ? To what is 
allusion made by the incidents in the background and 
sky ? Are these things extraneous ? Would the picture 
have sufficient reason for existence without them ? Have 
later artists been in the habit of introducing such acces- 
sories ? 

Is the landscape painted with as much feeling for 
nature, as much artistic appreciation as other work of 
this period ? Compare Palma Vecchio and Bassano. 

Did the artist thoroughly understand child life and 
movement ? Do the faces express the innocent mirth 
of childhood ? Is the picture pleasing in spacing of 
trees, figures, etc. ? Has it a serious purpose ? What is 
its place in art ? 

Anacreon .... Tranlations of Thomas Stanley. 

Blanc Ecole bolonaise. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 389-391. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 659-660. 

Landon Vies et oeuvres des peintres : deTAlbani. 

Moore Melodies, etc. , with odes of Anacreon. 

Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 239-240. 

Spectator — 1884. v. 57. 1402. 

Symonds .... Studies of Greek Poets, v. I. ch. X. (Greek 

Lyric Poets.) 
Wedmore . . . . The Masters of Genre Painting. 3-12. 
Wornum .... Epochs of Painting. 386-390. 

DOMENICHINO (Domenico Zampieri). 1581-1641. 

Outline for Study, 

Domenichino as artist : apprentice to Calvaert ; 
. early removal to the Caracci Academy ; a pro- 


found student ; his purity of sentiment ; "pathos 
the key-note of his design " ; slowness in 
elaborating his compositions and its effect 
upon their character ; theoretical knowledge of 
architecture ; musical attainments ; his distin- 
guished artistic rank. 

Domenichino's friendships : devotion to Annibale 
Caracci; mutual aid of Albano and Domeni- 
chino ; business association with Guido ; in- 
fluence over Poussin, the French painter. 

Domenichino's works : his powerful patrons ; 
paintings in the Farnese Palace and in Roman 
churches ; frescos at Grotta Ferrata ; commis- 
sions in Naples ; important easel pictures ; 
contemporary respect for his learning. 

Domenichino's trials : brutality of Calvaert ; per- 
secutions of enemies in Rome ; charges of 
plagiarism ; implacable hostility of the Naples 

Topic for Furfhitr Research. 

Resemblances of works of art — plagiarism con- 
scious or unconscious? (Magazine of Art, 
V. 25.) 

"Twelve great master pieces"; the judgment of 
the eighteenth century vs, the judgment of 
today. (Brush and Pencil, v. 2.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4642^ — Last Communion of St. Jerome 

No. 4643b —Head of Acolyte : detail of 4642b . 

Painted, 1614, for Santa Maria in Aracoeli (church of the 
Altar of Heaven). Transported to Paris, 1797. The scene of 
the Communion is the church of the convent founded by the 
Saint in Bethlehem. St. Efrem Scio administers the sacrament. 
St. Paul, a Roman convert, kneels with upturned face. This 


picture caused a charge of plagiarism to be brought against 

Compare with 4560^, point for point. How funda- 
mental is the resemblance ? Study for original traits. 
How has Domenichino improved the composition of the 
group ? of the [background ? How has he varied the 
lighting ? Which has greater depth of space ? Which 
the least sense of crowding ? Which arrangement of 
angels is morejhappy ? 

In which is the dying Saint more realistic ? Is either 
repellent? What redeeming qualities in Domenichino's 
representation ? 

In which picture is the attention of other participants 
more appropriately directed ? In which are the types 
more idealistic ? 

Observe that one group is farther back from the pic- 
ture frame. Which effect is the best ? Is there a more 
complete impression of unity in one picture than in the 
other ? Is unity due to arrangement of figures, distribu- 
tion of light and shade or to sentiment ? 

Is the acolyte a simple, unaffected boy ? Is there a 
conscious seeking for beauty in pose, features, expres- 
sion ? Study his hair. Is this imitative painting ? Cf. 
3 1 40^ . Is there enough detail ? 

No/4646b — ABcension of St. Paul. 

i.2}4 X 1.8. 

Is any criticism suggested by the general form 
of this composition ? Why is it unusual ? 

Is the movement flight, or stepping upward, or climb- 
ing ? Are intense emotion, glorification, well expressed ? 
Would the introduction of clouds have been an advan- 
tage ? Cf. 3455^, Raphael's treatment of a similar 

Do the attendant spirits feel the importance of the 
event ? Compare with the infant attendants of Michel- 


angelo's Prophets and Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel. How 
do they emphasize the sentiment of the principal figure ? 
Is this a work of power and ability ? Is it marked by 
care and perfection of finish ? 

No. 4649b — Meeting of St Nilus and Otho III : detail. 

Life size. 

The Monastery of Grotta Ferrata is situated on the Alhan 
Mountains near the famous town of Frascati. It was the home 
of a Greek order founded, 1002, by St. Nilus under the Emperor 
Otho III in honor of St. Basil. The series of frescos painted 
by Domenichino in the chapel of St. Nilus, 1610, are among the 
chief works of the artist. They were, however, extensively re- 
stored, 1819. 

Cf. 4643^, 4369^. How may the differences in treat- 
ment be explained ? Are 4649^ and 4643^ painted with 
the same suppression of unnecessary detail ? Is there 
any duplication of facial forms and peculiarities ? 

Is there an absence of emotion ? When may the im- 
personal quality be a good trait in a picture ? Is the 
type of King contemporary with the painter? Is it 
mediaeval ? Has it imperial force ? 

No. 4654b ~ St. CeciUa. 

Life size. Painted for Cardinal Ludovisi. 

With what representation of St' Cecilia must Domeni- 
chino have been familiar ? Is there evidence of its in- 
fluence ? 

Are there special advantages in three-quarters length ? 
Is the group well bound together ? Why was the violon- 
cello chosen ? Why the parallel outlines of cherub and 
'cello ? Has the cherub a whole-hearted earnestness in 
what he is doing ? Is there any levity in the composi- 
tion ? Are Saint and cherub well-drawn, models of 
beauty and grace ? 

Has Domenichino the facility of Guido Reni ? The 


religious seriousness of the Caracci? Has he profound 
sympathy with his subject ? Has he the power and 
spontaneity of the great draughtsmen and composers ? 

4642b. . . Rome — Vatican, Picture-gallery: Last Commu- 
nion of St. Jerome. 

4643b . . . Detail of 4642b . 

4646b . . , Grotta Ferrata — Monastery : Detail of Meeting of 
St. Nilus and Otho III. 

4654b. . . Paris — Louvre: St. Cecilia. 

Brush and Pencil — v. 2. 141 ; 201. 

Blanc Ecole bolonaise. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 386-389. 

Heaton History of Painting. 186-187. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 657-659. 

Landon Vies et oeuvres des peintres: le Dominiquin. 

Liibke History of Art. v. II. 527. 

Magazine of Art — 1899. v. 23 : 16-23. 

Kadcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 234-236. 

Scribner's Magazine — 1898. v. 24. August: in "Field of 

Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 384-388. 
Wornum .... Epochs of Painting. 381-383. 

IL GUERCINO (Giovaimi Francesco Barbieri). 1591-1666. 

Outline for Study. 

Executive power of the Eclectics. 

Guercino's early master in his native town. 

His * naturalistic tendency : influence of Paolo. 

Veronese ; study of Caravaggio in Rome. 
Dramatic force of his mature style; his polor; 

his general artistic ability. 
Patronage of Pope Gregory XV; merits of the 

fresco of Aurora. 
Guercino's art school at Cento. 
Successor to Guido as Director of the Bologna 


Academy ; degeneracy of his late style and the 
effect upon the Academy. 

Topic for Further Research, 

The Eclectic School's vogue in England in the 
late eighteenth century. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4670b — Vision of St. Jerome. 

An allusion to one of the Saint's visions. The trump, 
sounded in his ear by an angel, summoned him to the judgment- 
seat where he was accused, by the awful voice of the Judge, of 
being not a Christian, but a devotee of heathen philosophy. 

Why was St. Jerome a favorite subject at this period ? 
Is the spiritual character of his vision made plain ? Is 
this an ideal conception of a divine messenger ? Is it 
appropriate to the message ? 

Cf . 4600^. . What difference in form, in modeling ? 
Does this suggest the anchorite ? Are the forms re- 
fined .'^ Is there a feeling of roundness and solidity in 
the figure ? In what different ways is the idea of tragedy 
suggested ? 

What evidences of Guercino's interest in thorough 
craftsmanship ? Is this the case in other pictures by 
him ? Has he used the samt's emblems artistically or 
perfunctorily — /. e.^ would the picture have been as ad- 
mirable without them ? 

No. 4672b —The Virgin appearing to St. Bruno. 

To what Saints was this privilege accorded.^ Does 
St. Bruno's companion see the vision ? Compare with 
similar themes in Filippino Lippi, 1755^, in Perugino, 
1907^ . How does the spirit of the later art show itself ? 
In which is emotion most convincing ? 

Should a vision be less distinct, less substantial ? 
What would be gained and what sacrificed were it more 
dim, more faint ? Is the vision or the Seer the chief 


object of attention ? Have artists usually subordinated 
one or the other in treating this subject ? 

What evidences that the light is very powerful ? Is it 
treated consistently — /. ^., is it of the same character 
throughout the painting ? How do the angels about Ma- 
donna differ from the usual cherubs ? Is this an advan- 

No. 4678^ — The Virgin: detail of Annunciation. 

Compare with other annunciate Virgins. Is the se- 
renity of this one unnatural ? Has Guercino's Madonna 
type (Cf. also 4672^) beauty of face, of character ? Has 
she reserve force ? What qualities has she that fit her 
for her traditional place in the world's story ? 

Review Guercino's characteristics as a painter. Is 
his work marked by solidity ? Is there accurate repre- 
sentation of textures in flesh and drapery ? Is hair 
actual ? Compare with Titian's methods. Are hands 
sensitive, strong ? have they a grasp ? Does his work 
make a strong appeal to the intellect ? To the emo- 
tions ? 

What other artist painted in this manner the illumina- 
tion proceeding from holy persons ? Is there any other 
evidence of this artist's influence over Guercino ? 


4670^. . . Paris — Louvre: Vision of St. Jerome. 

4672b . . . Bologna — Gallery : The Virgin appearing to St. 

4678b. . . Forli — Gallery: The Virgin: detail of Annuncia- 


Blanc Ecole bolonaise. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 398-401. 

Heaton History of Painting. 189. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 664-665. 

Liibke History of Art. v. II. 530-531. 

Portfolio — 1891. V. 22 : 153-156. 

Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting; 240-241. 

Symonds . . . Renaissance in Italy v. VII. 390-303. 


SASSOFERRATO (Giovanni Battista Salvi). 1605-1685. 

"What Carlo Dolce was to Florence, Sassoferrato was to 

Outline for Study. 

Natural gravitation to Rome of Urbino artists. 

Sassoferrato's studies under pupils of the Caracci ; 
tendency to minute finish ; favorite subjects and 
characteristic treatment. 

His labors in Rome and Naples ; his copies com- 
pared with his original works ; significance of 
the presence of his paintings in nearly all im- 
portant collections. 

Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 4680b — Afadonna and Child. 

A duplicate of this, discovered in private possession in Paris, 
has been claimed by its owner as a Raphael. 

Does this recall Raphael's Madonnas in shape of head 
and face, in unaffected ease of pose, in attitude toward 
the Child ? in details of dress ? in the Child's gleefulness, 
beauty, chubbiness, character of hair ? 

Are the differences that exist indicative of originality 
or of defective copying ? Is this as profound in senti- 
ment as Raphael's ? As exquisite in charm ? Is the 
Child clasped as naturally and firmly ? Is sympathy be 
tween mother and Child as warm } 

Blanc Ecoles ombrienne et romaine. 

Heaton History of Painting. 191. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 667. 

Spooner .... Biographical History of the Fine Arts. (Ex- 
cellent article quoted from Lanzi.) 

CRISTOFANO (CriBtoforo) AUiORL 1577-1621. 
CARLO DOLCE. 1616-^1686. 

Outline for Study. 

Two Florentine eclectics, illustrating the tenden- 
cies of the movement in two generations. 


Cristofano Allori a painter in the grand manner ; 
descendant of Baroccio's school ; pupil of Pa- 
gani — a school that endeavored to unite Vene- 
tian color with Michelangelo's drawing. 

Allori compared with Sassoferrato and Carlo 

Judith in Scriptural history and in art. 

Carlo Dolce a painter devoted to excessive finish 
and delicacy of sentiment ; length of time re- 
quired for his work. 

Careful and minute study of nature an antidote 
to mannerism. 

The "half-length" in late art. 

The vogue of Carlo Dolce. 

Eclectic schools at Cremona and Milan. (See 

General decline of the Renaissance in Italy — 
literature, politics, church power. (See Sy- 
monds, Renaissance in Italy). 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 4630^ — Judith with the head of Holofernes. 

Life size. Painted for Cardinal Alessandro Orsini. In Paris 
1 797-1815. Traditionally, portraits of the artist and the woman 
beloved by him. The art-historian Lanzi, who thought Cristo- 
fano the greatest painter of his time, says that this was a chef 
d' oEuvre. 

Is this a new type of beauty ? Is it especially fitted 
for this r61e ? Is there an effective contrast of youthful 
beauty with commanding presence, fiery action, determi- 
nation } 

Compare 1636** and other treatments of this subject. 
In what spirit are they conceived? Which the more 
poetic ? the more dramatic ? the more naturalistic ? more 
repellent ? 

Why have the draperies more substance than in earlier 
painting ? Does one of the dangers of decadence lie 


here ? What traits in this picture are common to the 
sixteenth century Venetian School ? 

No. 4700b — St. CeciUa. 

' No. 4702b — St. Casimir. 

Third son of King Casimir of Poland. Studious and serious 
from childhood he was a poet and composer of hymns. He 
refused the crown of Hungary, electing instead a life of Chris- 
tian retirement and poverty. 

Has the artist sought beauty chiefly or the appropriate 
ideal ? Have these Saints a marked individuality ? 

Are aQpessories selected for their significance ? for 
artistic effect ? Is there extravagance of sentiment ? Is 
St. Cecilia distinctly a Saint or any lady in festal attire ? 
Cf. 4654^, 3494^. Which breathes most religious in- 
spiration, the largest thought, the most delicate insight ? 

Are St. Cecilia's hands a new type in painting ? What 
character-gifts do such hands indicate in real life ? Are 
they especially appropriate here? Are St. Casimir's 
hands similarly suggestive ? 

What evidences of slow and painstaking execution ? 
Do we see accuracy, spirit, brilliant contrasts ? Has 
anything of value been sacrificed to perfection of finish ? 


4630b . . . Florence — Pitti : Judith with head of Holofernes. 


4700b . . . Dresden — Gallery : St. Cecilia. 
4702b . . , Florence — Pitti : St. Casimir. 

Blanc Ecole florentine. 

Encyclopedia Britannica. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 393. 

Kugler ..... Italian Schools, v. II. 667-676. 
Symonds .... The Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 2-4. 


Xc00on 3* 


CARAVAGOIO (Michel Angelo Amerighi da Caravaggio). 


Outline for Study, 

Decline of the Roman School (so-called) after the 
death of Raphael ; decadence of manners and 

Doctrines of the Naturalists ; their logical develop- 
ment and results. 

Caravaggio's birthplace ; his character, his crimes 
and his wanderings ; compare with Cellini. 

Caravaggio's art — its vigor, originality, lack of 
elevation ; treatment of shadows, effect of illu- 

Caravaggio's choice of models for religious 

An artist's ability to develop models either on the 
side of ideality or of vulgarity. 

Caravaggio's position in the artist world of Rome ; 
his pupils and his vogue in Italy. 

** He was born to destroy painting ! " 

— PoussiN. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4802b —The Card Players. 

Is the treatment of such subjects common in Italian 
art ? Why ? In what respect is the method of painting 
new ? How natural is it in attitudes and arrangement, 
in likeness to real persons, in modeling and textures ? 
Are types coarse ? Is beauty lacking ? 

Was the artist interested in a psychological problem ? 
Are the different actors unmistakably characterized .^ 
Is this a mirth-provoking comedy? Is tragedy sug- 
gested ? 


Is it direct — /. ^., is eveiything necessary to the expla- 
nation of the scene ? 

No. 4805^ — The Eatombment. 

Figures life size. 

Has the artist considered the form of his composition ? 
Are figures well placed with regard to each other ? Did 
the late Renaissance painter customarily rely upon scien- 
tific airangement? Were his compositions more or less 
harmonious and pleasing than those of the beginning of 
the sixteenth century ? 

Are these types well selected ? Is there an attempt 
to idealize models or to gloss over physical facts ? How 
does the movement of the hands affect the character of 
the picture ? Do late artists make more effective use 
of them than earlier ones ? 

Review similar scenes in Italian art. Giotto, 1071**; 
Perugino, 1909^; Fra Bartolommeo, 3258^; A. del Sarto, 
3319^; Raphael, 3426**; Garofalo, 3770^; Michelangelo, 
2108*'; Titian, 4131^, 4198**; Tintoretto, 4330^. How 
do these compare in inertness or in repulsiveness of 
death ? In natural or in theatrical expression of grief ? 
Have all these artists approached the subject in a 
reverent spirit ? Does artistic success depend most upon 
propriety of sentiment or technical ability ? 

How have the later artists gained ? Has the center of 
interest shifted — /. ^., is it in the Christ or in the mourn- 
ers? Which makes the most piteous appeal? Which 
place least dependence for interest upon religious sym- 
bolism, upon accessories of costume, upon supposedly 
proper setting ? Which enables us to realize the scene 
most vividly ? 

No. 4807b —Death of the Virgin. 

Painted for Santa Maria della Scala in Trastevere, but ban- 
ished because too realistic and unworthy the majesty of the 
temple. Afterward it passed through the collections of the 


Duke of Mantua, Charles I and Louis XIV to the Louvre. It 
was much decried in the eighteenth century. 

What suggests the reh'gious character of the subject ? 
Is there anything incongruous with that character ? Cf . 
other death scenes of holy persons — Ghirlandajo, 1690**; 
Giotto, 1090^. Which is the most readily understood ? 

Is this unmistakably death ? Are essential points of 
drawing obscured by heavy shadows and blinding lights ? 
Have masses of deep shadow an effect upon the senti- 
ment of the picture ? Explain the points of strong light. 
Can space and air be suggested by such extreme con- 
trasts of light and dark ? Cf. 4330^. 
• How are these three examples of Caravaggio illustra- 
tions of naturalism ? What was his technical motif 1 
Can a naturalistic presentation suitably illustrate a sub- 
ject from sacred tradition ? Why ? 


48o2t> . . . Dresden — Gallery: The Card Players. 
4805b. . . Rome — Vatican, Picture Gallery: The Entomb- 
4807b . . . Paris — Louvre : Death of the Virgin. 

Art Journal — 1886. v. 53. 235-236. 

Blanc Ecole napolitaine. 

Dohme Kunst und Kunstler Italiens. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 395-397. 

Heaton History of Painting. 192-194. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 674-676. 

Liibke History of Art. v. II. 531-533. 

Radcliffe .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 241-242. 

Shedd Famous painters and paintings. 142-T43. 

Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 388-389. 

GIUSEPPE RIBERA (Lo Spagnoletto — the little Span- 
iard). 1588-1656. ' 

Outline for Study. 

Political importance of Spain in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries. 


Romantic lives of painters of the violent manner ; 

Ribera's career — its contrasts of misery and 

Ribera's inheritance from the Spanish schools of 

painting. (Van Dyke, History of Painting,) 
His congenial master in Italy; later modifying 

influences of Correggio and of Venetian School. 
The Naturalists in Naples ; the local artist union ; 

hostility toward the Eclectic School ; effect of 

this attitude on Naples as an art producer and 

art collector. 
Ribera's complete possession of the resources of 

his art ; its strength and other noble qualities ; 

color and treatment of flesh. 
His predilection for strange subjects; character 

of his models. 
Ribera as an engraver. 

Supreme position of Ribera's art in Naples ; de- 
mand for his works by religious establishments. 
" Born to illustrate the horrors of the Inquisition." 

Topic for Further Research, 

Relation of art to religion. 

Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 4810b _ pieut 

Is this bold, simple naturalism or is a decorative ele- 
ment present ? Has the special appeal been made to 
the feelings through the pitifulness of death or the grief 
of mourners? Upon which phase have other artists 
dwelt ? 

Cf. 4805**. Why is 4810^ the more religious picture? 
Have the same artistic methods been employed ? Com- 
pare the treatment of the body with Guercino's St. Je- 
rome, 4670^. Is there more feeling for reality? Do 
these " shadow" pictures suggest imperfect ability ? 


Is this a poetic rendering ? Is pleasure afforded by 
^correct drawing, ^ treatment of flesh, ' drapery ? 

Would color add to the value or attractiveness of the 
picture ? How far may color values be suggested in 
black and white (or any monochrome)? 

No. 4812b — Flaying of St. Bartholomew. 

Is there more strain and distention of muscles in the 
Saint than in the other figures ? How explained ? 
What sentiment prevails amongst the executioners and 
spectators ? Does it make the scene more real, more 
impressive ? Compare with other pictures of martyrdom. 

What evidences of ability are noteworthy ? Study the 
composition — is it formal, balanced, are lines graceful, 
interwoven .? Compare with Caravaggio : do these start- 
ling effects of light and dark suggest a new range of 
meanings ? In what respects do these artists resemble 
Michelangelo ? 

Was it a new idea to concentrate interest on the fig- 
ures by ignoring the setting ? Do pictures seem unsatis- 
factory because of that omission ? 

In what sense is this a work of art ? Is there the 
same reason for its production that Donatello had for 
his St. John, 1220*, or II Zuccone, 1238*? Can the 
choice of such subjects be explained by Ribera's nation- 
ality or by anything in the history of the times ? 


4810b. . . London — National Gallery: Piet^. 

4812b. . . Berlin — Old Museum ; Flaying of St. Bartholomew. 


Arena — 1896. v. 17; December: i. 
Art Journal — 1870. v. 22. 33. 

Blanc Ecole espagnole. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Forum — 1889. v. 7. April : 134-143. 
Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1882. v. 25. 40. 
Heaton History of Painting. 194-195. 


Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 677-679. 

New Englander — 1886. v. 45. September: 783-797. 
Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy v. VII. 389-390. 
Van Dyke . . . History of Painting. 173-176; 182-183. 

SALVATOR ROSA. 1615-1675. 

Outline for Study, 

Salvator Rosa's inheritance of talent — letters 
and music ; his brilliant intellect and wit ; his 
romantic career — compare with Cellini; char- 
acter resemblances of the prominent naturalists. 

Circumstances of Salvator's early life that deter- 
mined his artistic bias. 

The country of the Albruzzi — its picturesqueness 
and its strange inhabitants. 

The bizarre in Salvator Rosa's art ; the introduc- 
tion of romanticism into painting. 

Salvator's experiences in Rome ; hostilities be- 
tween him and the academicians of St. Luke ; 
his social and artistic prominence. 

His connection with Aniello Falconer in Naples . 
the " compagnie del Morte." 

Salvator's artistic ambitions ; his types ; land- 
scapes — his best claim to fame ; historical sub- 
ject ; battle scenes. 

*' Salvator the embodiment of some antique virtues 
in a decadent society." 

Topics for Further Research, 

Relation of art to history. (Art Journal; Maga- 
zine of Art.) 
Greek colonies in southern Italy. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4820b —The Bridge. 

What is most valuable in this picture — the physical 
incidents of the landscape or its effects of light and air ? 


What elements of picturesqueness ? Might any arrange- 
ment of rocks and trees be equally good? Has the 
artist accomplished anything that a photographer could 
not have done ? 

Would the landscape be as interesting without the fig- 
ures ? Have foreground objects been carefully studied 
from nature ? Are any probabilities violated in the 
stability of the bridge ? in the cascade ? Does the 
treatment of the picture suggest a manner — /. e., are 
peculiarities of touch repeated in cliiPs and trees ? 

Does this differ in any essential respect from land- 
scapes previously studied ? .Compare with Perugino, 
Giorgione and Titian. How does it compare in char- 
acter, interest and value with the other work of this 
month ? 

No. 4828b —The Conspiracy of Catiline. 

Life size. In Paris, 1799-1815. Lentulus and Cethegus in- 
terchange oaths and receive in vases the drops of blood. Cati- 
line raises his hand toward heaven and Quintus Curius con- 
verses with two soldiers. 

How far is the picture historically accurate ? Are the 
men characterized by earnestness, absorption ? Does 
the light account for the expression of their faces } 

What problem did the artist set himself to solve — an 
effect of light ? the avoidance of monotony in a row of 
heads on a straight line ? Where should the spectator 
stand to see all these heads on a level ? Are pictu- 
resque and decorative elements treated so as to yield the 
utmost pleasure of which they are capable ? 

Is this as original a conception as The Bridge ? With 
which line of Salvator Rosa's art have you most sym- 
pathy and in which most interested ? Why ? 


4820b. . . Florence — Pitti : Landscape: the Bridge. 
4828b . . . Florence — Pitti : The Conspiracy of Catiline. 


Art Journal — 1877. v. 35. 113-116; 1883. v. 47. 27, 85. 

Blanc Ecole napolitaine. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Gilbert Landscape in Art. 437-439. 

Heaton History of Painting. 196-197. 

Kcenig La jeunesse de Salvator Rosa. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 679-681. 

Magazine of Art— 1887. v. 10. 410-415. 

Morgan Life and Times of Salvator Rosa. 

Radclifte .... Schools and Masters of Painting. 242-244. 


Xc00on 4- 


PADOVANINO (Alessandro Varotari). 1590-1650. 

FRA VITTORE aHISLANDI (H Frate di Galgario ; H 

Frate di Paoletto). 1655-1743. 

Outline for Study, 

Lingering vitality of Venetian art : the Venice of 
the early and late seventeenth century. 

Parental influence on both of these artists. 

Padovanino's early life in Padua; his artistic 
inspiration there. 

Removal to Venice ; exhaustive study of Titian 
and its effect in the formation of his artistic 
style ; simplicity, dignity and solidity of his 

Padovanino a man of ripe culture ; his independ- 
ence of the prevailing art influence of his day. 

Ghislandi an inmate of a Venetian monastery; 
his reputation as a portrait painter. 

Questions on Special Pictures. 

No. 4840^ — The Marriage at Cana. 

Painted for the Refectory' of San Giovanni di Verdara, Padua, 
a monastery now suppressed. 

Recount the incidents and accessories with which the 
artist has enriched the scene. Do they obscure the 
main point of the incident ? Is this an intellectual 
rather than an artistic conception ? What is the effect of 
the numerous vertical lines ? How are they opposed ^nd 
balanced .? 

What new motifs are introduced ? Do they lend them- 
selves to the scene easily ? Is it a better picture be- 
cause of their addition ? 

Is the picture quiet or disturbed ? Is this due to the 
sentiment of the figures or to the arrangement of light 
and shade ? 


Compare with Veronese's banquet scenes ; with 4313^. 
Is there an equal ability in filling large spaces ? in the 
sense of depth and atmosphere ? Is there greater feel- 
ing for the individual ? Is the scriptural character more 
emphasized ? 

Does it recall Bonifazio I ? Explain the differences. 
Are there any evidences of haste, of incompetence ? 

No. 4850b — A Youthful Artist 

This fine picture is of heavy impasto, rich in color, transparent 
and warm in shadows. 

In what way is the artist character shown ? Is this to 
be taken seriously or is it a playful reference to a child 
who would imitate his elders ? 

Is there a sympathetic interpretation of character? 
Are face and attitude full of vitality or is there sugges- 
tion of affectation or weakness ? How have shadows 
been made to heighten the portrait effect ? 

How does this differ from portraits previously studied 
in costume, in type, in treatment ? Is there anything 
conventional or mannered in the way of defining the 
features ? Compare with portraits by Moroni, Palma, 
Vecchio, Bronzino. Is this more advanced art ? higher 


Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 71-72. 

Blanc Ecole venitienne. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 683-684. 

Biographical Dictionaries. 




*'The glorious Benjamin of Venetian painters." 

Outline for Study. 

The last of the great Venetian painters ; exponent 


of the exaggerated splendor of the eighteenth 

Tiepolo a brilliant frescante ; mural paintings in 
Santa Teresa, and other ecclesiastical establish- 
ments in Venice : in Villa Valmarana, Vicenza ; 
in numerous other palaces of North Italy. 

Call to Germany; frescos in the Bishop's palace, 

Residence in Spain ; royal patronage ; influence 
on Goya. 

Tiepolo's smaller works ; talent and originality as 

His worldly success ; sought by powerful and 
wealthy patrons of art. 

Tiepolo 's spontaneity ; daring foreshortening ; un- 
ceasing study of nature ; methods of work ; the 
decorative element in color and design. 

A gifted man without the fire and profundity of 

Topic for Further Research, 

Spanish art during the century following the 
death of Velasquez and Murillo. (Heaton ; 
Smith; Van Dyke ; Washburn.) 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 4900b _ Christ's Journey to Calvary : detail. 

Foreground figures life size. 
Crosses are seen against the sky rising from a hill in the 
background toward which the train ascends with banners and 
Roman standards. St. Veronica with the napkin on which 
Christ had left the imprint of his face is in the right foreground. 
The material is decorativelj handled. 

Note the sentiment with which all the bystanders re- 
gard Jesus. Would this be the case if he were consid- 
ered a common malefactor ? Is there a more significant 
explanation than mere humane feeling ? Cf . 48 1 2^ . 


What diflFerence in sentiment ? Compare other paintings 
involving deep emotion, as enumerated in questions on 
4810**. How is 4900^ more realistic than any scene 
from Christ's life yet studied ? Which comes nearest 
to it in manner ? What is the significance ? 

Is Tiepolo's realism repellent ? Are race types sug- 
gested ? Are physical and mental prostration satisfac 
torily rendered ? Has he used the human form as an 
anatomist or to display effects of chiaroscuro ? 

Compare with other artists in ease of arrangement, 
naturalness of incident, mastery of artistic resources. 
What is the result of such comparison ? 

No. 4902 b — The Last Supper. 

2.7 X 2.IO>^. 

Was the artist interested in all details that belonged to 
the scene ? Did the representation of the floor seem as im- 
portant as the characterization of the disciples ? Is that 
characterization as careful, as varied as in other pictures 
of this subject ? What picturesque elements in Tiepolo's 
picture ? Does the picturesque involve a sacrifice of the 
natural? Is this suitable for a church ? Why? 

Study the composition. How are the columnar masses 
balanced ? What intentional opposition of lines ? What 
repetition of forms ? Is the science of arrangement as 
obvious as in late fifteenth and early sixteenth century 
paintings ? Is there as much unconsciousness of it as in 
the works of Tintoretto and others of the later Venetian 
school ? How has vigor been imparted ? 

Cf. 4320^, 3337^, 3005^. Which recalls more imme- 
diately the actual scene ? Is its deeper significance also 
recalled ? 

Is there any meaning in the action of the dog ? 

How does Tiepolo compare, in genuineness and ability, 
with the Bologna school ? 


No. 4905b — Neptune and Venice. 

( B^ a typographical error Venice appears as Venus in the in- 
scription on the Reproduction.) 

Mural decoration under a window, Sala delle Quattro Porte, 
Ducal Palace. A variation of the allegorical theme, the wedding 
of Venice with the sea. The Adriatic is impersonated by Nep- 
tune who strews the treasures of commerce at the feet of Venice. 

Is Venice characterized poetically, appropriately ? In- 
terpret the expression of the sea divinity. Does it serve 
to glorify Venice ? What connection has the lion with 
the subject ? 

Is the allegory ingenious? obvious? Cf. 4451^, 3765^, 
3610^, 1612^, 1285^. 

Does the decorative feeling dominate all these pictures 
by Tiepolo ? How does his idea of decoration diflfer 
from that of Botticelli ? Would their pictures be equally 
appropriate for wall-painting, or for panels that are part 
of an architectural scheme ? Why? 


4900b . . . Venice — S. Alvise : Christ's Journey to Calvary : 

4903b . . . Paris — Louvre : The Last Supper. 
4905b. . . Venice — Ducal Palace, Sala delle Quattro Porte: 

Neptune and Venice. 


Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 75-78. 

Blanc Ecole venitienne. 

Chennevieres . Les Tiepolo. 

Dohme Kunst und Kiinstler Italiens. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts — 1903. v. 37. 466-468; v. 28. 339-241. 

Heaton History of Painting. 239. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 685-686. 

Leitschule . . . Giovanni Battista Tiepolo. 

Magazine of Art — 1896. v. 19. 453. 

Molmenti . . . Acque-forti di Tiepolo. 

Molmenti . . . Les fresques de la V^illa Valmarana a Vicenza. 

Smith Spanish and French Painting. 

Symonds .... Renaissance in Italy, v. VII. 388-389. 
Van Dyke . . . History of Painting. 183. 


CANALETTO (Antonio Canale). 1697-1768. 

Outline for Study, 

Painters of Venetian architectural subjects ; inter- 
est and poetry imparted to these subjects by 

Canaletto's training as scene painter — its bearing 
on his after work : his color ; rendering of the 
phenomena of light ; sketchy and clever sug- 
gestion of details. 

His studies in Rome — what interested him there. 

Artistic and social success in England. 

Canaletto's pictures as records of contemporary 
characters and costume. 

Imitators and pupils of Canaletto. 

Topic for Further Research, 

Italian society in the eighteenth century. 

Questions on Special Picture, 

No. 4910b —View in Venice. 

1.4^ X 2.3. Figures i^ inch in height. The Canal del Mendi- 
canti. The building en face is the Scuola di San Marco, now 
used as a hospital. To the right, nearly hidden from view, is the 
church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, the Westminster of Venice. 
The famous equestrian statue of Colleoni stands in the open 
square. In the distance are seen the dome and towers of San 
Giorgio Maggiore. 

In what ways is this characteristically Venetian ? Was 
the view selected for its picturesque aspect or for some 
other motive? How is the scene redeemed from mo- 
notony ? Can reason be shown for all the lights and 
shadows ? Would a photograph differ materially from 
this picture ? 

Can you imagine a more inspiring treatment of this 
subject ? What additional elements would you sug- 


gest ? Compare Salvator Rosa ; also landscape and 
architectural backgrounds by Padovanino, Bassano, Paul 
Veronese, Bonifazio, Palma Vecchio, Titian. 

If all the slanting lines were prolonged would they in- 
tersect at a common center ? (Apply this test to such 
details as windows, mouldings, etc., as well as to 
more important leading lines.) What effect would 
extreme mechanical accuracy be apt to have on the 
artist's interest in such pictorial phenomena as textures of 
surfaces, accidents of light, position of moving objects, 
color, etc. ? 

What do the figures do for the picture ? Are they 
treated suggestively ? Is water painted with an apprecia- 
tion of its possibilities of beauty ? 

Study the facade of Scuola di San Marco. Is it a 
balanced design ? Is it made more intelligible by divid- 
ing it into two sections and considering each by itself? 


Berenson .... Venetian Painters. 72-75. 

Blanc Ecole venitienne. 

Kugler Italian Schools, v. II. 687. 

Moreaii Antonio Canal dit le Canaletto. 

ANTONIO CANOVA. 1757-1822. 

Outline for Study, 

The Classic Revival — a reaction against the baro- 
que ; its origin and impulse. (Willard, Mod- 
ern Art.) 
Canova's birthplace and family ; his early revolt 
I from the degenerate art of his day. 

i His Venetian master Torretti ; ardent application 


t'b severe studies, 
i Indebtedness to his patron, Falier. 

Canova sent to Rome by the Venetian Common- 


wealth ; interest excited by his youthful prom- 
ise; the classic ideal engrafted with modern 
refinement and sensitiveness. 

Two principal divisions of Canova's works — 
* subjects from classic mythology; ^mortuary 

Acquaintance with Napoleon ; visits to Paris and 
Vienna and resulting works. 

Social and academic honors. 

The restoration to Italy of works of art taken by 
the French. 

Canova's character — refinement and learning; 
helpfulness to other artists ; piety ; the church 
built and endowed by him for his native place. 

Topics for Further Research, 

Art and Science. 

Winckelmann, the German promoter of the 
classic revival. 

Questions on Special Pictures, 

No. 2300^1 — VenuB. 

What is he explanation of this attitude ? Why is it 
a favorite theme in sculpture ? Study the arrangement 
of hair, the fall of drapery — are the resemblances such 
as to suggest direct imitation of Greek works ? Has the 
head antique simplicity ? Is the drapery composed with 
reference to leading lines ? 

What is the character impression — is this being in- 
tellectual ? sensitive? self-conscious? Cf. 2134*^. Is 
there a sense of blitheness, of irresponsibility, of fullness 
of physical health? Cf. 2082^. 

How does it differ from an antique conception of 
Venus ? Cf. 701*. * Is it as impersonal ? Are the vari- 
ations along the line of softness and grace ? 


No. 2302ii — Hercules hurling LicliiaB into the Sea. 

Colossal. Undertaken to prove to unfavorable critics that the 
sculptor was •* capable of representing manly vigor as well a® 
feminine grace." Carved in marble for Don Giovanni Torlonia* 

For the beginning of the story of which this is an incident 
see note, 4602b . The appropriate time came for Dejanira to 
test the charm given her by the dying* Nessus. Anointing a 
garment with the blood she sent it to Hercules by the lad 
Lichias. The charm was a fatal poison ; stung to madness by 
his torment, Hercules hurled the luckless messenger from the 
cliff far out into the sea. 

In how far is this the Greek conception of Hercules ? 
Why is the drapery thrown across the chest — is that 
Greek in arrangement and texture ? Compare with the 
Farnese Hercules, with the " Torso of the Belvedere." 
(See University Prints of Greek and Roman sculpture.) 
Has Canova confined himself to the expression of mus- 
cular strength ? Are the forms of Hercules those sug- 
gested by Spartan training ? Is there an impression of 
powerful movement, of irresistible propulsion ? Is this a 
decorative conception ? Is it dominated by the beauty 
impulse ? 

No. 2307''i — Tomb of Archduchess Maria Christina. 

No. 2310» — Detail of Canova's Tomb. 

Both of these tombs are modifications of a design made for a 
monument to Titian which was not completed owing to the 
untimely death of the promoter of the enterprise. 

Canova's remains rest in the simple but elegant tomb in the 
little Duomo, erected through his beneficence for his native vil- 
lage, Passagno. Duplicate cenotaphs are in Venice and Rome. 

Maria Christina, wife of Archduke Albert of Austria, was 
noted for her virtues, especially for benevolence. 

How far is this an original conception ? How appro- 
priate is the pyramidal form ? In what way is grief ex- 
pressed ? Is the symbolism obscure or obvious ? What 
reminders of the character of the princess ? 

Is there strong feeling for beauty ? In what found ? 


Is emotion profound ? excessive ? sentimental ? Is 
thought or form the chief consideration ? 

What is Canova's relation to the Renaissance move- 
ment in Italy ? to classic Greek art ? Are these synony- 
mous ? Why ? 

3300a . . . Florence — Pitti : Venus. 

23025*. . . Rome — Torlonia : Hercules - hurling Lichias into 

the Sea. 
2307a. . . Vienna — Augustiner Kirche : Tomb of Archduchess 

Maria Christina. 
2310a . . . Venice — Frari : Detail of Canova's Monument. 

American Architect — v. 9. 15. 

Art Journal — 1876. v. 33. 309. 

Flaxman .... Address on Antonio Canova (in Lectures on 


Liibke History of Sculpture, v. II. 432-437. 

Marquand and Frothingham. History of Sculpture. 242-243. 

Memes Antonio Canova. 

Moses Works of Antonio Canova. (Outline draw- 
ings. ) 

Nation — 1889. v. 48. 321-323. 

New Englander— 1874. v. 33. 173-184. 

Quatremere de Quincy — Canova et ses ouvrages. 

Scott Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern. I33-H3' 

Westminster Review — 187 1. v. 96. 398. 

Willard Modern Italian Art. 3-60. 

Winckelmann . History of Ancient Art : with life of Winckel- 





■^ ,